Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 15 June.

MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)

Order, for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 15 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Excellence in Cities

Mr. Keith Darvill: If he will make a statement on progress with the excellence in cities proposals for learning mentors.[123333]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The excellence in cities programme has so far seen the recruitment of 800 learning mentors with a further 600 to come in the new extended excellence in cities areas. The mentors work with schools and with parents and help to reduce disaffection and alienation. In the case of the Wales high school in Rotherham, they have cut non-attendance and late attendance by 60 per cent. They also help to reduce the exclusion of children from school by working with them to overcome their problems.

Mr. Darvill: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that learning mentors, alongside on-site pupil referrals and other measures, are a vital part of the Government's programme for tackling disaffection and the problems of disruption in schools? Will he confirm that, under the Conservative Government, thousands of young people were excluded from school and were left out on the streets to commit crimes? Does he also agree that the Conservatives are Johnny-come-latelys on this issue and have no ideas to offer?

Mr. Blunkett: Johnny-come-lately is an admirable description of the Leader of the Opposition. He was away at Easter and the spring bank holiday, so he missed the two speeches in which I addressed the issues that he

talked about earlier this week. There are 1,000 learning support units in schools across the country, with proper funding and a full education for pupils in referral units such as the Zacchaeus centre in Birmingham, which was funded by the Government's school inclusion grant. The grant enables schools to buy back in the services that they need at the referral unit and it ensures that children can work with mentors and have places when that is necessary. All that has gone on because the Government have changed from £17 million to £527 million the amount of money that is available. A Johnny-come-lately, who was on holiday when these matters were discussed, has suddenly caught up with them now that he is back from swimming with the dolphins.

Mr. Graham Brady: As part of the Government's laudable aim of achieving excellence in cities, they are setting up new private schools, the city academies that are funded by the state. Ministers have determined that the practice of such centres selecting 10 per cent. of their pupils will raise standards in our cities. Will the Secretary of State explain what has led him to the view that 10 per cent. is the correct percentage? Does he not believe that the optimum percentage might be 5, 20 or perhaps even on occasions 100 per cent?

Mr. Blunkett: The initiative has nothing at all to do with mentors or the excellence in cities in programme in general, but it is entirely in line with our diversity programme in which specialist schools have exactly the same opportunity in terms of aptitude not selection. The previous Government were quite happy to use that distinction themselves and it has been dealt with on numerous occasions. No doubt, we shall return to it when I have more time to explain the difference to the hon. Gentleman.

Farm Diversification

Mr. Paul Flynn: What estimate he has made of the likely effect on employment levels in leisure and similar pursuits as a result of farming land being redeployed for non-farming uses over the next five years. [123334]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): We have not made an assessment in the terms that my hon. Friend asks. However, in the past year, jobs in agriculture and fishing fell by 12,000 and jobs in the services grew by 354,000, and some of them will be the result of farm diversification.

Mr. Flynn: It is extremely regrettable that there is a continuing fall in jobs in farming, a process that has been going on for at least 200 years. However, it is encouraging to note that there has been an increase in the population of rural areas—four times the increase in the nation as a whole—and that there has been a similar increase in the number of start-ups in small and medium-sized enterprises in the countryside. Is it not encouraging that certain farms in non-arable areas that employed two or three people on a farm of a couple of hundred acres have diversified to


employ hundreds of people in leisure and other industries? That is good for the environment, good for the prosperity of rural areas and good for jobs.

Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments; I certainly agree with them. The structure of employment is changing and some of the highest employment rates and some of the lowest employment rates are in rural areas. The role of Government in the process is to enable people to make a successful transition from one job to another and to stay in work.

Mr. Colin Breed: What additional resources may be available to people who work in agriculture and those with businesses connected with agriculture to ensure that the new job opportunities are long-lasting, full-time, well paid and sustainable?

Ms Jowell: There are two sources of help. The first is the labour market programme, for which my Department and the Employment Service are responsible, and the second involves the Government measures being negotiated with the Commission, such as the English rural development plan which, for rural areas, is worth £1.6 billion over seven years. In addition, the new rural enterprise scheme will contribute more than £150 million to rural areas between 2001 and 2006. Much of that money will be available to assist in the diversification to which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) referred.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that as employment opportunities in agriculture decline, there may be opportunities for businesses in many farming complexes? Will she make representations and give encouragement to other Departments so that there is evidence of joined-up government and the planning service can seek to accommodate farming enterprises that are diversifying?

Ms Jowell: The figures that I gave in response to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) demonstrate the level of commitment and investment that the Government are making to help rural communities make the transition to which the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) referred. Joined-up government, which involves a concerted effort across government, is the key to success and stability in that.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the Minister accept that the present deep economic difficulty in agriculture hits providers of land-based higher and further education in two ways? It slashes the profits and trading income from college farms and, quite understandably, it affects applications for courses. For example, is the Minister aware that, in the last month, the Berkshire college of agriculture has had to withdraw its course for the two-year national diploma in agriculture because of a lack of take-up? I am not being partisan, but the situation is extremely serious and requires careful consideration from the Department, which should consult with MAFF, the two funding councils and the colleges if the essential infrastructure of education and training in land-based industries is to be maintained.

Ms Jowell: I am happy to examine any individual cases which the hon. Gentleman may wish to raise and am

willing to receive further details of the specific example that he gave. It is important to ensure that people are trained for existing jobs and that work-based training and courses offered by further education colleges equip people with skills for the future labour market.

Clothing and Textile Industry

Judy Mallaber: What action he will take on the recommendations relating to education and training in the strategy document for the United Kingdom clothing and textile industry published on 6 June. [123335]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): I welcome the report and, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was pleased to announce a 12-point plan to support the industry and help it to adapt and meet global changes. The industry has a turnover of almost £18 billion, has exports worth more than £5 billion and employs 277,000 people, so it has a strong future and must respond and focus effectively on its key strengths. We have accepted all the recommendations on education and training in the strategy document and have worked actively to establish and support two national training organisations to encourage more effective education and industry links.

Judy Mallaber: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. I agree and confirm that textiles and clothing remain one of our largest manufacturing sectors and have a positive future, provided that they are helped to adapt to compete in world markets, along the lines suggested in the report. However, in the past decade or so, tens of thousands of workers in the industry have lost their jobs and many more face redundancy. What are the Government doing to help those workers?

Ms Hodge: There have been redundancies in the clothing and textile industry but, each quarter, 8,000 new jobs in the sector are reported to the Employment Service. In areas where there has been concentrated redundancy, such as that in the William Baird case, we have been able to employ rapid response units to good effect to give immediate assistance to people affected by closures. As well as our existing resources, we have identified £2 million of new, additional moneys for the industry.
We have asked the textile and clothing strategy group to report to us by the end of the month with proposals as to how we can establish a pilot to link people who have been made redundant, or who are in danger of redundancy, more swiftly with job opportunities in their locality. We want to know how we can intervene in a fragmented industry where redundancies have a widespread impact. We are also evaluating the effectiveness of the north-east regional taskforce to see whether that has added value.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I welcome the Minister's replies and fully support the views of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber). Does the Minister accept that, sadly, the clothing and textile industry will not have a good future unless the large retailers stop pressing down the manufacturers' margins—that would encourage investment and employment—while they themselves operate margins of over 300 per cent?
Will she encourage Departments of State, particularly the Ministry of Defence, to purchase British goods, and not those from overseas? [Interruption.]

Ms Hodge: I am hesitating because I did not know whether I was hearing a contribution from an old Labour market interventionist or a Conservative free marketeer.

Mr. John Bercow: Where does the suit come from?

Ms Hodge: I have been asked where my clothes come from, and I can tell hon. Members that today I represent the European Union, but my fundamentals are well and truly British.

Mr. Winterton: The Minister has not answered my question.

Madam Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister attempted to answer the question, although it was an amusing response.

Mr. Winterton: Am I permitted a point of order, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: I am afraid that I do not allow even the hon. Gentleman a point of order in the middle of Question Time. He may return to the point later, if he wishes. The House will realise that I have given the Minister the opportunity to answer the question, and she appears not to want to do so.

Ms Hodge: I thought that in the first part of my response I was starting to answer the question. The serious point is that, as part of the 12-point plan, we are examining how we can impact on the supply chain to ensure that we protect the textile industry. If the hon. Gentleman were to read the strategy document, he would find that that proposal is incorporated in it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister understand that there is nothing wrong with intervention? The Government may have started out in 1997 with the starry-eyed idea that market forces would ensure jobs for everybody in every part of Britain, but the truth is that we have to intervene, and we always have done. Intervention has recently taken place in Rover and other cases, and there is nothing wrong in that. In mining, too, there has been limited intervention, although some of the money will go into Richard Budge's pocket.
I am concerned about the fact that, in Bolsover, 700 textile jobs have been lost in the last three months, which in a small geographical area is equivalent to the Rover job losses. We all know that there has been a seepage of jobs from textiles for donkey's years, but the Government must understand that there is nothing wrong with intervention; market forces will not resolve the problem in peripheral and coalfield areas. Now that the Government have a chance to move away from the operation of market forces and to understand that, to save

jobs in textiles and other industries, we have to intervene. If we do that now, before the general election, everything will be all right.

Ms Hodge: That is a serious contribution, and there is a real issue about ensuring that, when the Government intervene—this Government believe in active government and intervention—we do so in a way that ensures that jobs are sustainable over time in an economy that is changing and restructuring fast and that we protect and promote not only the interests of workers, but those of consumers who need to buy those products. The intervention has to be of a nature that will ensure that there is strength and sustainability in the jobs. In the clothing and textile industry, we have to focus on the high-quality, well-designed products that we produce here in Britain, of which we are justly proud.

Mr. James Gray: Tubbs Elastics, Sherston, which is in my constituency and is the largest elastics manufacturer in the United Kingdom, is equally concerned—like the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber)—about the future of the textile and clothing industry. In that context, like the textile and clothing industry generally, it is worried that the so-called summit held the other day and the 12-point plan are all about spin, PR and gimmickry rather than actual substance. As an example of that, is the Minister not ashamed that, on the day when she knew that she would answer a question about the textile and clothing industry, she should barefacedly come to the Dispatch Box wearing a French suit? Is that not an example of the Government's approach to industry? Knowing that she would talk about the industry, why could not she have worn a British suit, for heaven's sake?

Ms Hodge: I tried—[Interruption. I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you would stop me presenting each label on every garment that I am wearing today, but I tried to demonstrate that I am a good European by wearing a mixture of European and British clothes. Can I make a serious point? The Conservative party never did anything to support the textile and clothing industry to restructure and ensure that it had a proper, sustainable future. In response to growing redundancies and problems in the area, we have put together a group that has produced a report, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read it. This is the start of action. If he is suggesting that we as a Government should be protecting sectors of an industry that are unsustainable, that is a massive shift in Conservative party policy.

Young Long-term Unemployed

Ms Rosie Winterton: What steps he is taking to improve provision for the long-term unemployed aged 25 years and over. [123336]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): The new deal for those who are 25-plus has already helped 40,000 long-term unemployed people into jobs. There are now 55,000 fewer people unemployed for 18 months or more than there were in May 1997, but there is more to do. From April next year, we intend to build on the success of the new deal for young people and increase


significantly our investment in the new deals for older people facing long-term unemployment by giving them personal advice and high-quality practical assistance to help them to move back into work.

Ms Winterton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, even though the employment zone in Doncaster has been up and running for only about a month, it has been extremely successful in getting long-term unemployed people over 25 back to work? However, at present those who can benefit from the scheme are selected randomly and I should be grateful for her assurance that, if it continues to be as successful as it is at the moment, the scheme will be extended to all long-term unemployed people in the zone.

Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and her congratulations on the early success of the employment zone. Random assignment is being used to ensure that the new approach succeeds in getting more of those facing long-term unemployment back into work more quickly. As soon as that success is clearly established, the extra support and help available to some of her constituents will be available generally.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that the new deal—one of the actions taken to support long-term unemployed over-25s—has been a failure, not least in North Yorkshire? Will she join me in recognising that the burdens on employers are disproportionate and increase the cost of employing over-25s?

Ms Jowell: The Opposition have been persistently hostile to the new deal—a programme that, according to independent evaluation, is getting young and older people off benefit and into work. They have always been indifferent to the fate of the long-term unemployed, hostile to the new deal and hostile to our Government's objective of opportunity for all in return for responsibility from all.

Mr. Derek Foster: It is welcome news indeed that the success of the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds is drawing out important lessons for beefing up the new deal for over-25s. My right hon. Friend will recall that the recent Education and Employment Select Committee report identified transport as one of the most important factors in enabling people looking for work to get to where the jobs are. What progress is she making—with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and with local authorities—to that end?

Ms Jowell: My right hon. Friend raises an important point. Since I appeared before the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have launched a further stage of the travelcard for new dealers, offering half-price travel to enable young people to get to work. We are looking to extend the travel-to-interview scheme and the new job grant will begin to remove some of the obstacles that travel presents. We are determined to remove the obstacles to people getting to jobs. We are extending help to disadvantaged people, extending the opportunity of work and taking the practical action that that requires.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that 81 per cent. of participants in the new deal for over-25s are on

the advisory process, 45 per cent. leave the scheme to claim jobseeker's allowance, 9 per cent. go to work-based learning, 3 per cent. go to the training and education option, 25 per cent. go to destinations unknown and, in its two years of operation, only 14 per cent. have managed to achieve sustained employment, why does the right hon. Lady not admit that no Government have ever promised so much, delivered so little and blown their own trumpet with such indecent haste?

Ms Jowell: Well, just tell that to the 40,000 people who have already found work as a result of the new deal for over-25s. We will take no lessons from an Opposition who have always been hostile to helping unemployed people into work and who have tried to thwart everything that the Government have done to extend the advantage and opportunity of work to the unemployed. We are building on the success of the new deal for young people, building on the help with basic skills, numeracy and literacy and preparation for work and removing the practical obstacles that many long-term unemployed people face in getting to work. We are investing six times more in the help that will be available to the long-term unemployed to get them into work. We want the over-25s to get work, and more than 200,000 young people have successfully moved off benefit and into work through the new deal.

Employment Service Direct

Mrs. Helen Brinton: How many jobseekers have secured employment through Employment Service Direct. [123337]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Employment Service Direct is part of a £68 million modernisation programme, which uses old technology in the form of a telephone, and new technology in the form of touch screens, to enable people to access the jobs that are available when they need them. Since it was launched last year, 50,000 people a week have used the service and 82,000 have found jobs through it. Those 82,000 are among the almost 1 million people who have got a job since the Government were elected, but did not have a job when Conservative Members were in power.

Mrs. Brinton: I am grateful for that reply. I was pleased to learn from my local district manager that jobseekers perceive the service as successful. It means that they do not have to trot out to the jobcentre to access employment. There are also many hotlines in the community through which people can access jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the excellent new service will not only get more people into the job market but increase jobs mobility? That is what we want.

Mr. Blunkett: The service is part of a more adaptable and flexible labour market, which works in the interests of growth with low inflation, and offers opportunities that did not previously exist. It is part of the development of the new learning and work bank, which will link learning opportunities and skills to the jobs that are available, help people to prepare their CVs and enable employers to access employers and call them for interview. The service is also more than that. It contributes to the employment


service's ability to reach out to those who previously sat at home, waiting for someone to find them a job. It means that we can not only draw people into the jobcentre and help them, but work outwards from the jobcentre to ensure that, wherever there is a vacancy, a person is ready and able to fill it.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Why then did the Government close down the successful job clubs? What advice has the Secretary of State for my 58-year-old disabled constituent who has been out of work for two years, but was previously helped back into employment by the Conservative Government's job club scheme? Why does not the Secretary of State believe that that would help in the case that I described?

Mr. Blunkett: Because we replaced what was available with the new deal for those aged over 50 and the new deal for disabled people. They provide a personal adviser service, and a service tailored to the needs of individuals. The personal adviser service provides what were previously job club activities, such as showing people how to write a letter, make a phone call or prepare a CV. The new programme has been much more successful in getting the long-term unemployed and the disadvantaged into work.

Higher Education (Ethnic Minority Access)

Dr. Ian Gibson: What plans he has to ensure that members of ethnic minority groups have equal access to higher education. [123338]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): Ethnic minority students are generally well represented in higher education, although some groups still give cause for concern. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced a further £4 million to enhance the £18 million allocated to students from disadvantaged areas. Many of those from the ethnic communities will benefit from those measures.
I congratulate the many universities that reach out to different communities. For example, London Guildhall has excellent links with the local Bengali community. The university of East London also does good work. There is good work from universities throughout the country.

Dr. Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the Dearing report, which, in 1997, highlighted the persistently low participation of specific ethnic groups in the pre-1992 university system? Does he know that entry applications for 2000–01 show that the position has not improved and that percentages have decreased in some ethnic areas? Does my hon. Friend know that ethnic groups are concentrated in specific post-1992 universities, and that Dearing identified one of the reasons for that as their ethnic-friendly policies? Will he ensure that the pre-1992 universities also have such policies and do not carry a tag of institutional racism?

Mr. Wicks: It is vital that all our education institutions, including all our universities, have equal opportunities policies—not just pieces of paper, but practice to back them up. In my constituency, one third of the people are from the various ethnic communities. Increasingly,

we need to look at the individual communities, rather than the aggregate, because the experience of access to universities and other institutions is very different. Of course, our universities need to be sophisticated. I am not complacent, but the numbers going to universities from ethnic communities in general have increased. We still have a lot to do.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Does the Minister accept that those of us who attend graduation ceremonies at universities in London and outside are constantly and favourably impressed by the number of members of ethnic minorities who have secured higher education qualifications, under both the present Government and the previous one?

Mr. Wicks: Of course, we congratulate those young people, their families and their teachers. However, I am concerned that young men from the African-Caribbean community, many of whom have great ability and are working well in the schools, tend to be under-represented in many of our universities. That is one area in which we are not complacent; there is still much to do.

Mr. Ian Pearson: Does my hon. Friend agree that getting a place at university should be based on ability and what one knows, not on having a toffee nose and a public school education? I urge him to continue to put pressure on universities to do more to improve access. Will he consider carefully the proposals from the Sutton Trust about how the Government can help in that process?

Mr. Wicks: The Sutton Trust, for which we all have great regard, produced its report this week. It tells us that the chance of getting into a top 13 university is approximately 25 times greater if one comes from an independent school than if one comes from a lower class or lives in a poor area. We are working on that, with summer schools and bursaries from the universities for many of those youngsters, and we are working with universities, many of which are doing good work. Indeed, many at Oxford are doing good work. That is what we should encourage. We should move on and make sure that each and every one of our young people, whether rich or poor, black or white, from north or south, has a good chance, with good A-levels, to get into our good universities.

Mr. Phil Willis: Does the Minister agree that one of the problems with black Afro-Caribbean boys in particular is that they are four times more likely to be excluded from school, and therefore not to participate in the education service or go to university? What is the Minister doing about that? Will he comment on the College of Law research published this week, which shows that black and Asian students graduating from university are 30 per cent. less likely to find a place in a law firm than their white counterparts? Surely that is a disgrace at the other end of the market.

Mr. Wicks: I certainly understand the last point, and none of us is complacent about the extent of racial discrimination in this country. It has implications not only for Government, but for many institutions, including those connected with the law.
With regard to exclusions, there is a difficulty, but the numbers are improving. I am aware that not only our Department, but many schools and local authorities are working extremely hard on that issue. We need to work with parents, families and mentors in the community to get it right. We can play a major role. Education maintenance allowances will enable more children this summer to think about staying on in education. Much remains to be done—it is a big issue and we are working on it.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the key elements of the problem is that the funding basis of the further education college system, which is such an important gateway to higher education, was highly fragmented? Much still needs to be done to ensure that that conduit to higher education is made more effective than it was under the previous Government.

Mr. Wicks: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we are legislating for new learning and skills councils from April next year. The 47 local councils will be responsive to local needs and demands—the needs of business and employers, and also the needs of individuals—to make sure that demand and need lead the system.
We have invested record amounts in further education, because we regard it as a sector for the 21st century. We must ensure that it plays a major role in both social inclusion agendas and the economic development of local communities.

Mrs. Theresa May: Magdalen college, Oxford, has offered three ethnic minority candidates places to read medicine this autumn, in preference to other applicants. As the Prime Minister has refused to do so, will the Minister now repeat the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that that is an absolute scandal?

Mr. Wicks: I have great affection for the hon. Lady, but she is a poor substitute for Jeremy Paxman.

Mrs. May: Come on, answer.

Mr. Wicks: People should have equal chances of getting into our best universities, whatever their socio-economic status. At present, many children who secure top A-levels do not have those equal chances. It is a scandal that we have that inequality in Britain. The difference between us and the Opposition is that we think that it is a scandal and we are going to do something about it by applying practical measures. The Opposition are complacent. They concern themselves with the elite, while we are concerned with all children.

Mrs. May: The Minister speaks of the standard of entrants. The Government have said that they want places at medical schools to be ring-fenced for certain categories of students. People would prefer their doctors to have been selected on the basis of merit rather than political correctness. Given that rhetoric and waffle are now attracting slow handclaps from middle England, will the Minister set aside the waffle and set out for the House

exactly what the Government are suggesting, and whether it involves dropping standards of entry for medical students?

Mr. Wicks: It certainly does not. Given the Prime Minister's clear target—to expand universities so that 50 per cent. of our young people have access to university education—there will be excellent places, with quality maintained, for all children with decent A-levels: yes, from the private sector, and yes, from the public sector. It is crucial for us to get the best in our universities. At present, as the Sutton Trust has demonstrated, too much talent from working-class communities is being wasted. We are determined to redress the position.
The hon. Lady may not like that answer. I may not receive a pot of jam from her.

Mr. John Bercow: Sexist!

Mr. Wicks: It is not at all sexist. I know that the hon. Gentleman's application to join the Women's Institute was declined, and I can see why. What I said was not sexist at all. I will take a pot of jam from the hon. Gentleman, or from other hon. Gentlemen.
We are concerned about equal access to our top universities. That is what our party is about, and as a Government we are working on achieving it.

Secondary Schools (Ofsted Inspections)

Mr. Clive Efford: What guidance is given to Ofsted inspectors regarding short inspections of secondary schools. [123339]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The guidance given to inspectors from the Office for Standards in Education will depend on the purpose of the inspection. Some schools are inspected because they are subject to special measures or have serious weaknesses; others may be visited to check the progress that they are making. As part of the regular cycle of inspections, more flexibility has recently been introduced so that effective schools are inspected less often and resources can be directed to those that are less effective.

Mr. Efford: My right hon. Friend is aware of the anger felt by teachers, parents and the local education authority in my area following a short inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of one of the largest secondary schools in the country. Would she care to say how schools can plan ahead with any confidence if HMI fails to abide by the minimum standards set out in a document published in January? I have a copy here.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are far-reaching implications for schools throughout the country? Would she care to respond to letters sent to her by me, and by the leader of the local education authority? Will she support demands for an annual debate in the House on the activities of Ofsted, so that the House can impose some accountability on the organisation?

Ms Morris: I do understand. My hon. Friend has spoken to me a number of times, and also to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, about the feelings of


staff at Crown Woods school. I think that my hon. Friend has acted properly, and that the school has acted properly. In the first instance, the school wrote to Her Majesty's chief inspector. We have made it clear to the school that it has the right to go to the adjudicator, Elaine Rassaby—a woman appointed under this Government so that schools have access to a second opinion.
Two things are now important: first, that the school follows the proper processes, but secondly—I say it in the kindest way—that staff at the school do not let their anger detract from their core job, which is raising standards. I trust that they will not do that. We should await the response and see what happens.
On the accountability of Ofsted, as my hon. Friend knows, the Select Committee on Education and Employment almost annually now interviews HMCI and, on more than one occasion, the Committee's report has been debated on the Floor of the House. I welcome that and hope that it will continue.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What advice is the Minister giving to inspectors about exclusions in schools? Many schools that are failing have a lot of disruptive pupils, yet head teachers tell me that, for budgetary reasons, they are scared of moving those pupils out of school because, as soon as they do so, they lose the bonus given by the Government for keeping disruptive pupils in school, disrupting other children's education.

Ms Morris: Schools do not lose money for excluding children. Under the present Government, for the first time, money that used to be kept by the local authority in case children were excluded and had to be educated elsewhere is devolved to schools—more money to schools, rather than to the local authority. That is what we have done. It makes sense, if we give money to schools to ensure that children are not excluded and a child is then excluded, that the money goes with the child so that the child can be educated. That is exactly right.
I would be surprised if any school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency had been told by Ofsted inspectors that it should not be excluding children, but it is right that, when Ofsted inspectors go in, they look at the range of provision in the school. That will include looking at those children at risk of exclusion and ensuring that the school has a proper discipline policy.
Just so that there is no mistake—because there has been much mischief making and headline grabbing this week by the Leader of the Opposition—I believe that every hon. Member is united: our clear message to parents, teachers and pupils is that, where a child's behaviour is such that it distracts other students from learning, the head has every right to exclude that child from the school, so that others can get on with learning and teachers can get on with teaching.

Secondary Schools (Specialisms)

Mr. Phil Hope: If he will make a statement on the development of specialisms in secondary schools.[123340]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): Under the Government's specialist schools programme, schools can

specialise in one of four areas. Specialist school numbers have more than doubled since 1997, with just over 500 specialist schools operating from September this year. Those schools are continuing to prove their effectiveness in raising standards: the average percentage of pupils achieving five or more GCSE A* to C in 1999 compared with 1998 improved by two thirds as much again in specialist schools, compared with all other schools.

Mr. Hope: I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees that specialist schools have a vital role to play in raising standards and in increasing diversity. My particular reason for raising the question is that we are creating a fresh-start school in Corby—Corby community college. It is about to head off into a brand new future, building on the success of two other schools that have merged. It will really help that school to make a fresh start if it becomes an arts and media specialist school, to match the technology school that we already have in Corby. When that application comes in, will my hon. Friend give it sympathetic consideration, so that every child in Corby gets the best possible start to their education?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is a strong and persistent advocate for schools in his constituency, and I am sure that he will continue to be. I offer my best wishes to staff and students of the newly formed Corby community college as they take forward the important job of raising standards for their children.
My hon. Friend is right—one of the important points about applying for specialist school status, which is increasingly popular among schools, is that, in producing a development plan that shows how the school intends to raise standards and to benefit the wider community, the focus on that activity itself helps to raise standards. I assure him that, as always, we will consider any forthcoming applications very carefully.

Mrs. Theresa May: Grammar schools specialise in academic excellence. What is the Minister's definition of a "pretty standard" grammar school? Will she confirm, as a matter of fact, that Blackheath high school has never been one?

Jacqui Smith: That question confirms our view that the Opposition's attention is based on a few schools, whereas our attention is based on raising standards in all schools. The Conservatives have a shadow Minister for grammar schools. I understand, from reading The Birmingham Post, that they now have a Conservative candidate who calls himself the Midland's spokesman on grammar schools. I think that it is about time that the Opposition concentrated on all the schools in this country, and all the children in this country, as the Government intend to do.

New Technologies (Access)

Mr. Phil Sawford: What action he is taking to combat social inequality in access to new technologies among learners. [123342]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): We are taking steps to ensure that, in future, every school leaver will have the opportunity to use and develop


competence in those new technologies. They are essential, and we have to ensure that not only those pupils who are fortunate enough to have a computer at home are able to use them. Two out of three people in socio-economic groups A and B have access to a computer at home, whereas only one in five of those in socio-economic groups D and E have access.
We are making good progress in improving computer:pupil ratios and internet access in schools. In 1997, only one primary school in six had access to the internet; today, about two thirds do. Every school in the country will have access by 2002. We are also taking action to ensure access for adults. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given a commitment that, by 2005, all those who want it will have the opportunity to access the internet.
We are establishing about 700 computer learning centres to serve the country's 2,000 most deprived wards, and 50,000 free computer training courses are being made available to jobless—[Interruption.] I think that Conservative Members would like—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Has the Minister finished?

Mr. Wills: Madam Speaker, with your permission, I have not quite finished. We are taking important initiatives—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. We have reached only Question 9, and I deprecate that we are not making better progress. We have had long questions, and we have had very long answers from Ministers. Will the Minister now bring his answer to a conclusion?

Mr. Wills: I am happy to return to the subject in the future, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome his commitment to gaining the widest access to information technology. He clearly demonstrated that commitment on a recent visit to my constituency. I very much welcome his comments on the serious issue of the digital divide between those young people who have access to computers at home and those who do not. What further action can we take to encourage industry to tackle that social exclusion, and how can we monitor the effectiveness of the Government's initiatives to bring computers to those who are the many and not the few?

Mr. Wills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for re-emphasising the importance of tackling the digital divide. We are working with the private sector to do precisely that. I know that Conservative Members have absolutely no interest in those essential new technologies. They have proposed absolutely no policies whatsoever on them, and have demonstrated their complete lack of concern with bringing those opportunities to everyone in the United Kingdom, other than to a privileged few. They have continued to demonstrate that attitude today. The Government, however, will continue to ensure that everyone has access to those opportunities.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister mentioned that some schools are now kitted out with internet-capable computers. I represent a partly urban and

partly rural constituency, where there are people who simply cannot afford to have their own computers at home or to pay online charges, even with reduced costs. What steps will he take to ensure that, when the school day ends at 3.30 pm, all those schools with computers will be opened to young people and adults so that they can access the computers?

Mr. Wills: I am glad that at least one Conservative Member recognises the importance of the matter, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that. We particularly understand that it is sometimes difficult for schools in rural areas to have access. That is why my hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry have been pushing forward development of broadband wireless as a means of accessing the internet. I think that such access will be particularly valuable for schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We also have a range of initiatives designed to help schools stay open longer, so that they can provide access to those technologies in schools to the whole community. We are encouraging applications, from all communities that serve deprived areas, for new computer learning centres. I hope that there will be some applications from the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Skill Shortages

Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: If he will make a statement on the initiatives undertaken by his Department to address skill shortages in the engineering and IT sectors. [123344]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): This is, of course, a serious question. Briefly, the number of undergraduates enrolling in computer studies is increasing. With the national training organisations, the university for industry and the new Learning and Skills Council, we are tackling the issue. We are keen to ensure that more women enter careers in both computer science and engineering.

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. He will know, as I do, that there are a significant number of vacancies within the UK for qualified engineers and information technology literate individuals. These people are desperately sought. I welcome the significant number of initiatives that have been taken by my hon. Friend's Department to promote the understanding of science, engineering and technology. What further initiatives does he have in mind to promote the public understanding of science, and thus possibly induce more young people into an exciting career?

Mr. Wicks: One of the relevant new initiatives is the new Connexions service—the youth support service—for 13 to 19-year-olds. It is designed to give each and every child first-class information and guidance about learning opportunities and careers. The role of the national training organisations is also important. I shall be happy to discuss the matter in more detail with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: The Minister will be aware that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has said that funding for universities needs to


be reformed. It has suggested that engineering courses will have to cost rather more in tuition fees than, for example, arts courses. The figure of £6,000 has been talked about. Does the Minister agree that a £6,000 tuition fee, far from encouraging people to study engineering, would put them off? If so, how does he reconcile that with the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday? He said that
we simply have to change the system of finance. Virtually every major country around the world has had to do the same, and I think that it is right that the Government make the difficult … choice to reform student finance.—[Official Report, 7 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 282.]

Mr. Wicks: We have made important and sometimes difficult decisions, not least about student finance. Unlike the previous Government, who compromised quality and quantity by reducing unit costs, we are maintaining standards. We are funding the university sector. There will be no top-up fees, which we have legislated against. Such fees do not represent the right approach. The approach that we have outlined is the right way ahead.

Education Maintenance Awards

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What plans he has to extend education maintenance awards to other areas. [123345]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): Early signs from the existing education maintenance allowance pilots are very encouraging. Clearly, paying young people to continue their education has the potential to make a real difference to their lives and choices. We are extending the number of pilots to 41, and I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that one of them will be in east Lancashire.

Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will recognise that in Burnley and in east Lancashire there is certainly more deprivation than elitism. In Burnley, there are far too many people who are unable to go on to further and higher education. Anything that the Government can do to encourage people to take that route will be welcome.

Mr. Wicks: That is absolutely right. Although the needs and abilities of youngsters at 16 will vary, we must

ensure that all young men and women have first-class training and education. Education maintenance allowances are a vital part of the strategy, but there are other parts to it.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Who qualifies for this money?

Mr. Wicks: It is designed to help those from low-income backgrounds to gain access to education and training after the age of 16. We are piloting the scheme. The early results in terms of increasing participation and diligence in studies are most encouraging. It is a useful pilot and we are encouraged.

Pre-school Provision

Fiona Mactaggart: If he will make a statement on provision for children aged under five years in the private, voluntary, independent and maintained sectors. [123346]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): All four-year-olds now have access to free nursery education, and for the first time in Britain, because of a Labour Government, we are specifically funding the expansion of free places for three-year-olds. By March 2002, we shall have funded 190,000 free nursery places and two out of three of our young three-year-olds will have access to a free place.

Fiona Mactaggart: The House will want to know how many extra places for three and four-year-olds have been created in the past two years. May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the diversity of provision, which stands in stark contrast to the Conservatives failed nursery voucher system?

Ms Hodge: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in the issue and I congratulate her on that. We have a fantastic record on expanding places and ensuring diversity. Eight out of 10 of the new places that we have created for three-year-olds are in the private and voluntary sector. For the first time since funding has been provided for nursery education, there has been an increase in the number of places available for four-year-olds in the private and voluntary sector—a sector that the previous Government did their best to destroy.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 12 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.
TUESDAY 13 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.
WEDNESDAY 14 JUNE—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.
THURSDAY 15 JUNE—Debate on European Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 16 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 19 JUNE—Debate on the royal commission report on the reform of the House of Lords on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 20 JUNE—Opposition day [14th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
WEDNESDAY 21 JUNE—Second Reading of the Children (Leaving Care) Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 22 JUNE—Debate on the security and intelligence agencies on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 23 JUNE—Debate on policing of London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 14 June there will be a debate on European document No: 6230/00: the White Paper on Environmental Liability, in European Standing Committee A. On the same day, there will be a debate on European document No: 7828/00: Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 14 June 2000:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Documents: 6230/00, White Paper on Environmental Liability. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 23-xiii (1999–2000).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: 7828/00, Broad Economic Policy Guidelines. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 23-xix (1999–2000).]

Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am sorry, but I take points of order after questions.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful for the details of next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week. I welcome the long-awaited debate on the Wakeham report, six months

to the day after its publication. We hope that the Government will have something positive to say in that debate, so that they can dispel the widely held view that they wish that that issue would disappear.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister trailed a statement by the Home Secretary on the Burns report on hunting. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that there will be an oral statement, and tell us on which day it will be made?
There is mounting interest, not least among spending Ministers, in the comprehensive spending review. Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Chancellor hopes to make a statement on the outcome, and will she confirm that there will then be a debate on it in Government time?
Might we also have a debate on voluntary organisations, led by the Prime Minister, to give him an opportunity to agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) that the Women's Institute has done a sterling service to the Labour party by proving to the Prime Minister that people will not play a scripted part in choreographed politics?
Can the right hon. Lady find time for a debate on foreign affairs, led by the Foreign Secretary? There are many issues causing concern, not least the tragic death of Brigadier Stephen Saunders in Athens, on which the House will want to express its sympathy to family and friends. While we welcome the recent statements, they are no substitute for a structured full-day debate on foreign affairs. Will she also find time for a debate on the housing Green Paper—a subject that the House has not discussed for some time?
Finally, can the right hon. Lady say anything further about the date of the summer recess, so that our staff and the staff of the House can plan their lives?

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks, and for welcoming the debate on the Wakeham report and the reform of the House of Lords. He says that it is some time since the report was published, which is true. In fact, we scheduled the debate earlier and moved it at the request of the Opposition. As for the content of the debate, it will be—as I have made clear from the outset—a debate in which the Government wish to hear the views of the House. As for the notion that the Government hope that the issue will disappear, those who hope that it will disappear are those who hoped that it would never be raised in the first place, and they are on the Opposition Benches.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the Burns report, which we anticipate will be delivered soon. I cannot tell him for certain today when a statement will be made, but I expect that the Home Secretary will make a statement. I shall keep him informed through the usual channels. Similarly, I shall draw his remarks on the comprehensive spending review to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor—but the timing is not yet settled.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's request for the Prime Minister to lead a debate on the issue of voluntary organisations. Participation in general debates by Prime Ministers was not a pleasure that we ever had during the days of Lady Thatcher or her successor. However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would enjoy taking part in such a debate, although the pressures on his time are very great. As for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about people taking a scripted part in politics,


I have actually read the Prime Minister's speech—I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has not done so, and I understand if that is the case. It was excellent.
It is surprising that people objected to those unexceptionable remarks about the strength and importance of the health service and the need for reform. To some degree, one does wonder why it happened—[Interruption.] That is, of course, a matter for other people to decide. There is certainly some irony in the fact that an organisation that one would have thought would welcome remarks about the importance of traditional values chose, in some small quarters, to object to them.
The right hon. Gentleman also requested a debate on foreign affairs. I know that the whole House will wish to send its sympathies to the family of Brigadier Saunders, who, tragically, was murdered this morning. Fortunately we do not often lose public servants to such a fate, and the incident is much to be regretted. I know that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made public statements, and the whole House will wish to join in sending our sympathies to the family. I have taken note of the right hon. Gentleman's request for a full day's foreign affairs debate, and I am aware that the Opposition are seeking such a debate. I remind him that I have announced four separate days of debate on various issues and an Opposition Day, so we are finding time to debate issues as well as the Government's legislative programme.
I have also taken note of the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the housing Green Paper. He will know that the consultation on that is still under way, and the Government will respond in due course to the fruits of that consultation.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 796.
[That this House congratulates the Board of Science and Education of the British Medical Association for the publication of its report 'Eating Disorders, Body Image & the Media' which considers the role that the media can play in the causation of eating disorders; notes that eating disorders have one of the highest mortality rates of all psychiatric illnesses, and are an increasing problem in modern western societies; welcomes the Government summit which is to take place on this issue on 21st June; and calls upon the Government to implement the recommendations in the BMA's report which call for clearly defined targets for the reduction in the number of eating disorders through preventative measures, extra resources to be given for mental health services, specifically eating disorder clinics, and increased public education on the connections between dieting, physical activity and health, and the health risks associated with eating disorders and being underweight.]
It concerns the excellent report by the BMA on eating disorders, body image and the media. My right hon. Friend will be aware that eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia nervosa, are on the increase and are affecting ever younger people, especially girls. The Government will hold a summit in the near future, and I am sure that the BMA's report will be discussed there, but can my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the issue in Government time? There is a worrying trend of growth in such illnesses.

Mrs. Beckett: I know that this is a subject in which my hon. Friend has taken great interest, and it arouses

great concern in the House and more widely. She is right that the Government are giving full consideration to the recommendations of the report and very much recognise the seriousness of the issues. I fear that it is not likely that we will be able to find time on the Floor of the House in the near future to debate those issues, although Westminster Hall is another option. However, I assure my hon. Friend that, by that or some other means, the Government will look at the matter very carefully.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: First, may I ask to be associated with the condolences extended to the family of Brigadier Saunders? I am sure that that feeling is shared by all hon. Members.
Secondly, will the Leader of the House bring forward the report from the Review Body on Senior Salaries on hon. Members' office costs allowance, and will she be able to find time for a debate on the matter in the next couple of weeks? I draw her attention especially to the very tragic experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). Several of my colleagues have received advice from the police and others about adopting necessary security measures in their constituencies so that they can proceed with their normal parliamentary duties.
That is becoming a significant factor in the allocation of hon. Members' resources for the coming year. [Interruption.] When it comes to choreography, Conservative Members are better than the WI. Back-Bench Members are precisely the ones who find themselves in the difficult circumstances that led to the tragedy in Cheltenham.

Mr. Cash: Dad's army.

Hon. Members: Get a bodyguard.

Mr. Stunell: I hope that the Leader of the House will consider the matter carefully and bring a report to the House.
Finally, may I draw the right hon. Lady's attention—

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: You're safe in here, son, don't worry.

Mr. Stunell: May I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to early-day motion 804, which relates to Burma?
[That this House recognises and supports the Committee Representing the People's Parliament in Burma which has been established due to the military junta's refusal to comply with the 1990 election results and allow parliament to convene since that time; notes that the Committee Representing the People's Parliament has already received statements of support from the European Parliament, the Danish Parliament, the Belgian Parliament and the Norwegian Parliament; and believes that international recognition of this kind will serve to strengthen the pro-democracy movement in Burma.]
A number of legislatures in western Europe have offered their support for the People's Council representing the Parliament. Will she find time for the House to do the same?

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for associating his party with our remarks about the death of Brigadier Saunders.
The hon. Gentleman requested a debate on the SSRB report. If I recall correctly, that report was produced before the terrible events that took place in Cheltenham. I recognise that many hon. Members have taken advice as a result, especially for staff members in their constituencies, and that there is some concern about the financial implications. However, the SSRB did not report in the context of those issues, and perhaps the best way forward would be for the hon. Gentleman to draw his remarks to the board's attention. I shall do the same, as I know that the board keeps such matters under review.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to Burma. It has been the policy of successive Governments to recognise states rather than Governments or political parties. The question of recognition is therefore more difficult than it appears at first sight. However, we keep the matter under review, and we continue to put pressure on Burma to improve conditions at home.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it not rather important that regular reports should be made to the House of Commons when British troops are in action? Would my right hon. Friend consider a statement being made to follow the response made yesterday evening by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces to a question that I asked about what had happened with regard to a grenade that caused so much trouble for Brigadier Shirreff of 7th Armoured Brigade and his colleagues?
My hon. Friend said:
It is certainly difficult at this stage to do so, but people should not automatically assume one particular source.—[Official Report, 7 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 389.]
Obviously, the authorities locally are conducting investigations, but is not it important that the House should know the results, as the broader question concerns what exactly is going on in Kosovo?
Is not it also important for the House to have some explanation as to why significantly more armament is being dropped on Iraq? That was revealed in answers to questions asked in last night's debate by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).

Mrs. Beckett: Defence Ministers come regularly to the House, both to debate and to make statements. They endeavour to keep the House as fully informed as possible. It is, of course, not always possible to anticipate every issue or air every question that may come up on defence. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence endeavours to keep the House informed and will, I know, continue to do so through our regular debates and statements.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): Will the Leader of the House, in the forthcoming European debate or in an early statement, ensure that, for the first time, we get an accurate and straightforward account of the Government's European policy? In particular, will she ensure that Ministers answer the question about when they wish to abolish the pound, because they will be speaking against the background of a very successful "Save the Pound" weekend, led by the Conservative party?
Will Ministers also tell us for how much longer they wish the House to have the main power to tax people in this country, given the strong pressures in the draft treaty of Nice to give away huge chunks of our right to independent taxation? Is the right hon. Lady aware, for example, that it is no good defending ourselves in relation to the withholding tax in current negotiations and saying no, because if we sign the draft treaty of Nice in its current form, it could be pushed on us even if we objected to it?

Mrs. Beckett: The House is under no illusions—it knows exactly what the Government's European policy is. It has been repeated ad nauseam in the House, and was repeated again at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday. Either Conservative Members are wilfully refusing to pay attention or they have difficulty in grasping a simple, straightforward statement of policy. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have clearly indicated that only when the economic tests are met would the question of belonging to a single currency even arise.
As for the power to tax and the withholding tax, the withholding tax famously remained in play, despite claims from the Conservative party that it vetoed it when plainly it did not. The Government have continually made it clear that we will resist attempts to erode our freedom to run our own tax affairs as we choose, and we are doing so very successfully.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I thank my right hon. Friend for her response to my advances over recent months? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not want to be greedy, but she has now given us the 1999 annual debate on MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, whereas this is the year 2000. When does my right hon. Friend plan to hold the debate after next?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sort of grateful to my hon. Friend for his thanks. I recognise that he has been asking for this debate for some time—but to ask for another one is pushing his luck a bit.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: May I remind the Leader of the House of the question that I asked her on 27 January, which appears in column 586 of Hansard, in which I asked her to initiate an annual debate on road safety? She will be only too aware of the appalling accidents that have happened in Derbyshire. In the year to May 1999, some 17 people lost their lives on roads in Derbyshire; up to the May bank holiday this year, the figure is 35. That is an appalling rise, and. I believe that it is also reflected in other counties. It is time that we had an opportunity to discuss this matter in the House.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's concern. The whole House is conscious of the devastation that such a level of accidents causes to the lives of individuals and to the community. The Government have, as the hon. Gentleman will know, made available substantial increased investment for transport, but it takes time for that investment to bear fruit. However, where road safety is concerned, such statistics cause alarm and require careful investigation and thought.

Mr. David Chaytor: There has been increasing concern about some of the criticisms in Ofsted


reports on individual schools and local authorities, and there is continuing concern about some statements by the chief inspector of schools. Given that the responsibilities of Ofsted are due to be extended into the post-16 sector—the new Connexions service—and have been extended into the inspection of pre-school provision, and in view of Ofsted's unique nature as a Government agency beyond ministerial accountability, does my right hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea not just to have a debate on Ofsted in the near future, but to establish an annual debate in the House on its role and performance?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand that that issue is of considerable importance, and is one in which hon. Members—not least my hon. Friend—take a great interest. However, I fear that his request for a debate in the Chamber is yet another on the list of all those that we simply cannot satisfy. Of course there is the additional facility of debating time in Westminster Hall, to which my hon. Friend might care to direct his attention.
As for annual debates, we once added up the many issues on which Members on both sides of the House had requested such a debate, and came to the conclusion that if we were to grant all those requests, we should never do anything else.

Mr. Stephen Day: The Leader of the House told us earlier of the Prime Minister's enthusiasm to debate the voluntary sector. She may have noted that on Thursday 15 June there will be an opportunity for him to do so; a debate will be held in Westminster Hall on the role of the voluntary sector in national life—recognising and promoting volunteering.
Will the right hon. Lady advise us how many Ministers will be absent next week addressing the Women's Institute? If the number is significant, will that have as devastating an impact on the business of the House as it did on the Prime Minister?

Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is business questions, and it is not usual to ask for a debate while pointing out that such a debate will, in fact, take place. His question is thus rendered rather superfluous.
It would be a mistake on anybody's part to assume that the Prime Minister was distressed—[Laughter.] Like all of us, he is slightly regretful when people do not appear always wholeheartedly to agree with him. However, he is a man who has encountered disagreement in his time, and expects to do so again.
As I have already said to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), what the Prime Minister said in his speech was unexceptionable; I should have thought that 99.9 per cent. of the British people would agree with it. Probably, only someone who actively did not want to agree with it would find something to disagree with.
The most disturbing aspect of the comments made after the Prime Minister's speech went completely unnoticed by the media; it is a constant theme, which I have long believed is a besetting sin in British public life—the notion that politics is something that has nothing to do with everyday life. Everybody in this House either does know or should know that it is through the political structure that many of the decisions that most affect

people's lives are taken. If people are concerned about the health service, about post offices and a whole range of other issues, that is what politics is about.

Ann Clwyd: May I ask my right hon. Friend to use her considerable influence to persuade, coerce or cajole a Health Minister to come to the House to give an explanation about a private cosmetic surgeon, David Charles Herbert, whom I have named several times in the House? He is probably operating today, has actually been accused of mutilating at least 80 women, who have sent their complaints to the General Medical Council and to the Secretary of State for Health, yet the GMC says that it cannot, under current legislation, suspend that cosmetic surgeon. We deserve an explanation.

Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in such matters and has long raised concerns about them—not only with this Government but with the previous Government—on behalf of those who have suffered and been affected by people carrying out plastic surgery. I am aware of her concerns about the role of the GMC. However, I fear that I cannot offer her either time for another debate on the matter or an immediate statement. As she knows, Health questions will take place in the near future, when I am sure that she will continue her many efforts to raise and to press that matter.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Lady will be aware that her Government have made dramatic changes to the constitution and to the way in which the House of Commons operates. The one thing that the Government have not done—but which, I believe, they promised to do—is to restore status and authority to the House of Commons and to Back Benchers. Proposals to achieve that have been outlined in a report by the Liaison Committee entitled "Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive". May I make a plea on behalf of all Back Benchers that the Leader of the House find time for a debate on that important report, so that the House and Back Benchers can have meaningful authority and status and the power of the Executive can be properly held to account? Will she find time for such a debate?

Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have pointed out to the House before, the Government have added to opportunities for scrutiny both through the number of statements that we have made—since the general election, on average, one has been made every two sitting days—and through the opening of Westminster Hall, which allows more time for debates and for the study of Select Committee reports. Of course I recognise the wish for a debate on the Liaison Committee report, and the hon. Gentleman will recognise the fact that I am finding time for some of the many debates that people wish to hold. An interesting and important report has been produced, but it has profound implications for the operation of House—

Mr. Winterton: It does; it would restore some authority to the House.

Mrs. Beckett: The report makes many proposals that would make a substantial difference to all Members of the House and to the roles that they can properly exercise. I


very much hope that many more Members will read the report than I suspect have yet done so. They will then realise the implications of what is being proposed.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Although today hon. Members will rightly be concerned about the death of Brigadier Saunders, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the plight of another British citizen overseas? He is my constituent, Mr. Mohammed Chaudhry, who is the subject of early-day motion 810, which has been signed by 100 Members from both sides of the House.
[That this House notes with grave concern that Mohammed Chaudhry, a British citizen, has been held without charge by the Saudi authorities since his arrest on 23rd June 1999 following a five month internal investigation first by Colonel Abdullah Al-Mugari of the Military Police and then by Colonel Ali Johani from the Ministry of Defence into variances resulting from stock-take amounting to approximately £1.5 million of medical supplies at Riyadh Military Hospital where Mr. Chaudhry worked in storage and distribution; notes that the stock-take was cancelled in writing by the Chief Executive of the hospital before the variances could be completely investigated; notes that the investigating authorities never carried out a stock-take to establish facts; notes that, despite the fact that no further questioning by the police investigating the case has taken place since the first few days after his arrest, Mr. Chaudhry, who has always denied any wrong-doing, remains in prison, without access to his lawyer, whilst other employees, including his immediate superior, Captain Meshal, are free; believes that a year is more than sufficient time to investigate any crime of this nature, and that the continued detention of Mr. Chaudhry is a breach of natural justice and internationally accepted human rights; and therefore calls on the Saudi authorities to either release him to return home or, in the unlikely event that there is any case to answer, to bring that case forward against Mr. Chaudhry to enable him to defend himself in open court.]
Mr. Chaudhry has been detained without charge and without access to legal advice in Saudi Arabia for nearly 12 months. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to make a statement about that case, in particular, and about diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia in general? Further, does she agree that British and European citizens should be advised not to visit or to work in Saudi Arabia while their basic human rights cannot be guaranteed?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has been extremely active on behalf of her constituent, with whom the whole House sympathises. I know that she will be aware that the Foreign Office has been extremely active on Mr. Chaudhry's behalf and has continually pressed the Saudi authorities at the highest level to release him and to conclude their investigations as soon as possible. I cannot undertake to ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House on the matter in the near future. However, my hon. Friend will know that Foreign Office questions will take place on 20 June,

and I will certainly draw her remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention. I know that he will urge those who are dealing with the Saudi authorities to step up their efforts.

Mr. Edward Leigh: May we have a debate on the directive emanating from article 13 of the European convention on human rights? It will have a significant impact on Church bodies and Church schools. For example, our counsel's opinion is that if a Church school was to insist that a teacher, other than a teacher of religious instruction, should be of certain denomination, it could be taken to an industrial tribunal. A Church body will be able to insist that a minister is of a certain denomination; it would be bizarre if it could not. However, it will not be able to insist that other members of staff are of a certain denomination. That is significant and important.
Before the Leader of the House says, "Well, we can discuss that next week", I point out that that would be in a general debate on important European issues such as the euro. We need a specific debate on this important directive. The issue has been before the Scrutiny Committee and it has decided, against the advice in the report submitted to it, that other aspects of the directive should not come to the Floor of the House. However, there will be hell to pay if we do not have such a debate on the Floor of the House.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a dispute about whether the effect of those proposals is as he described. Indeed, that is precisely why he wants to debate this important matter. I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on such a specific issue on the Floor of the House, but it is suitable for debate in Westminster Hall.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: May I join other hon. Members in calling for time to be set aside for a debate on Ofsted, annually or otherwise? That would enable us to examine the need for greater accountability and transparency, and ensure consistency of inspectors' standard of performance.
Two years ago, a school in my constituency suffered badly from the diabolical behaviour of a registered inspector. When the school and I pursued complaints, Ofsted refused to say how many complaints had been made against the individual. Eventually, we were led to believe that the person concerned would not continue to inspect. I was therefore greatly dismayed to read a few weeks ago that the individual, Mr. Piers Bilston, was named as the inspector involved in causing distress to another teacher, which led her to commit suicide. Those are important matters, so we should have a debate on Ofsted.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend identifies an important and powerful concern as a result of his constituency experience. He will accept that Education and Employment questions have just taken place, and I fear that we shall be unlikely to find time for such a specialised debate in the near future. I therefore recommend to him the attractions of Westminster Hall.

Mr. Cash: The Leader of the House said that the European document on environmental liability was going to European Standing Committee A. She may not be


aware that, yesterday, the Select Committee on European Scrutiny decided that the document should be debated on the Floor of the House. The Minister responsible for such matters in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has also given a detailed analysis of the document, which highlighted massive changes in United Kingdom law, changes to the burden of proof and extensions of liability, both strict and otherwise.
The consequences of that involve enormous damage to British enterprise and companies, and raise the question of GM technology and biotechnology, so the matter must be debated on the Floor of the House. Will the Leader of the House guarantee that, in line with the decision made properly yesterday by the European Scrutiny Committee, which was correctly convened, the matter will be debated on the Floor of the House?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I cannot confirm that. I was aware of the view expressed yesterday by the European Scrutiny Committee on what I accept is an important matter. The Government did consider the Committee's advice, but it has long been the practice of successive Governments to discuss such issues in the appropriate Committees, which is why the matter is scheduled for debate in European Standing Committee A.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the three early-day motions that deal with the Stewart report and the siting of mobile phone masts, which are causing a great deal of concern generally and in my constituency? In Edgware and Mill Hill, for example, masts seems to sprout all over the place like oversized weeds, without the benefit of planning consent. Will my right hon. Friend find time to organise a debate so that we can examine the implications of that, especially the safety aspects? When mobile phone masts are sited next to schools or in residential areas, naturally that is worrying for parents and constituents in the locality.

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that concern has been expressed. Indeed, my hon. Friend has taken great interest in the matter on his constituents' behalf and Members on both sides of the House have received representations on it. Of course, the Government are keeping the issue under careful review and are considering, for example, the fact that, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no requirement for planning consent for such masts.
I am afraid that I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate on the matter on the Floor of the House. I believe that it has been debated recently in Westminster Hall, but I am sure that the issues would benefit from a further airing there.

Mr. Owen Paterson: The question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) raised a strange case. The European Scrutiny Committee was set up to represent the House; it was properly constituted yesterday and decided that document 6230/00 on environmental liability should be considered not in European Standing Committee A, but on the Floor of the House.
The document is of fundamental importance. There is an explanatory memorandum from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the

hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), which shows that the Government are, for understandable reasons, undecided about what to do. I am a member of European Standing Committee A, and few members turn up to its proceedings, yet night after night, we all go home early from the House at 10 o'clock. This is a golden opportunity for the Government to give the House a chance to go into the detail of the document and to show that the House is paramount.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman said that this was a golden opportunity. The unworthy suspicion has crossed my mind that the golden opportunity was presented to Opposition Members who found themselves in the majority on the Committee and decided to refer the matter to the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case for the importance of the issue. There is an Opposition day on 20 June, as I have announced, and I am sure that he and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will be able to press the matter on their Front-Bench colleagues.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does my right hon. Friend not accede to some of the requests of Tory MPs to have a day's debate on the Floor of the House for this and a day's debate for that? We could delay the beginning of the recess way beyond the start of the grouse shooting season on 12 August, even though the shadow Leader of the House keeps requesting the date of the recess, and I have an idea that he wants an early start so that he can get off.
On a more important matter, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that some of us do not believe in the Liaison Committee report? We do not believe in extending the sloppy consensus and in handing over power to three unelected Select Committee Chairs. If we move towards sloppy consensus and away from the class divide, this place will finish up as non-political as the Women's Institute.

Mrs. Beckett: The best thing that I can say is that, as always, I take a close interest in my hon. Friend's remarks. He is right to identify the fact that the Liaison Committee's proposals are profound in their implications and their potential impact on the House. They need to be properly considered and weighed, and no doubt that will happen over time.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Pursuant to the right hon. Lady's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) on the Liaison Committee report, is she advancing the novel theory that the House should consider issues with shallow implications before it considers those with profound ones?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I was not making that assertion. A matter that I did not refer to, because it is under discussion, is the fact that the Liaison Committee has invited me to give evidence to it on its report, which I am perfectly willing to do, although it is slightly unusual for a Committee to take evidence after a report has been issued. I have presumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the Committee would want the debate on the Floor of the House to take place after that, rather than before.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the Home Affairs


Committee has recommended a weakening of the double jeopardy rules, which go back 2,000 years to Roman law and provide fundamental protection of the rights of the individual British citizen. Weakening those rules might allow us to resolve a few short-term injustices at the expense of having much greater injustice in the long term. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that we can have a debate urgently, and certainly before the Government make up their mind? I give her notice that I cannot envisage circumstances in which I would be prepared to vote for a weakening of the double jeopardy rules.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend certainly makes an important point in identifying the serious implications involved in such proposals. He will know that that point was a recommendation of the Macpherson report—as ever, taken up on a knee-jerk basis by the Leader of the Opposition—and that the Government are taking the matter seriously and have referred it to the Law Commission, which is considering it carefully. The Government will consider the Law Commission's views carefully when it has finished its deliberations. He will also know that his concerns were expressed by several hon. Members on both sides of the House when the matter was last raised—not least by the then shadow Home Secretary, who suggested that it should be approached with caution. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman's leader unfortunately did not take that advice.

Mr. Nicholls: In a more bipartisan way, can I ask the right hon. Lady to consider a debate into the shambles that passes for the Government's transport policy? Would not such a debate enable us to discover whether there is any truth in the rumours coming out of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that, once again, the funding of bypasses will take place? Would not that mean that the people of Kingskerswell, which is in my constituency, would know whether they must wait another seven years before they gain any relief, or whether they could remind themselves that under the previous Government's proposals, the building of their bypass would have started by the end of this year? People, probably including Ministers, do not know what the Government's policy is, and it is about time that we had a debate so that we could discover it.

Mrs. Beckett: Was not the hon. Gentleman a Minister in that Department?

Mr. Nicholls: No, I was not.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman was certainly involved in discussions with that Department under the previous Administration. On the building of a bypass in his locality, yes, such proposals were indeed scheduled, but he will know that, given the lamentable failure of economic policy under the previous Government, the chances of funding being available for such things were always very problematic. Under this Government, almost an extra £2 billion has been put into improving roads and local public transport, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is urgent need for a debate on local government finance for two reasons? First,

the inadequacies of the current system are producing much eliminable misery, especially because of the inadequate financial basis for social services departments and others. Secondly, major changes have been brought about in the system, for example, by the change to resource accounting and the ring fencing of certain housing budgets, which could have the effect in my patch of losing Dacorum council some 40 per cent. of its revenue next year. Those matters are sufficiently grave to warrant urgent consideration.

Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand the concern that my hon. Friend rightly expresses on behalf of his constituency. However, I fear that I cannot find time for a debate on the Floor of the House in the near future, but oral questions to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take place next Tuesday and my hon. Friend, too, may find that he can secure a debate in Westminster Hall earlier than he could on the Floor of the House.

Dr. Julian Lewis: May I ask the Leader of the House a question of which I have given her prior notice because it is not one which she could normally be expected to answer unprepared? Will a Defence Minister make a statement in the House about what investigations, if any, the Ministry of Defence police are making into the circumstances whereby The Mirror acquired a stolen laptop computer with military secrets on it, given that fat t that my attempts to establish from The Mirror whether money was paid to the thieves rather than the police being informed of their identity have been rebutted with a degree of hysteria and abusiveness? It is a serious matter if a national newspaper pays thieves for stolen property to get headlines. Have any investigations been undertaker? I should be most grateful to the right hon. Lady if a statement could be made.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to raise the matter as that has enabled me to discover that an investigation—handled in the first instance by the British Transport police—is indeed under way. He will recall that the event took place at Paddington. The Ministry of Defence police are assisting with identification of property and so on. I fear that I cannot undertake to provide a Defence Minister to make a statement in the near future, but I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, and he has shown assiduity in raising the matter. I suspect that it might be possible for the MOD to make some information available to him and I shall certainly draw his remarks to its attention, but I understand that it is not yet in a position to do so.

Shona McIsaac: Have Ministers given my right hon. Friend any indication of when they will introduce proposals to reform leasehold regulations, particularly those for the purchase of freeholds? They are of particular importance to thousands of home owners in Grimsby and Cleethorpes who have purchased leasehold houses and whose leases are about to expire. Certain freeholders charge more than the market value of a property for the purchase the freehold and many residents have lost homes for which they have paid mortgages. That


is a scandal and I hope that Ministers will introduce proposals as soon as possible so that no more of my constituents lose their homes.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point and, like all hon. Members, I am sorry to learn of the problems that have affected some of her constituents. The Government wish and intend to publish a draft Bill in the not-too-distant future, which would give the House an opportunity to debate those issues and whether their handling can be improved. As she will know, it would then be a matter of trying to find time for legislation. As she is a regular attender of this event, she will also have noted the many occasions on which Opposition Members have seemed to wish for the Government not to introduce any legislation. She has powerfully made the point that people wish many things in this country to change. That requires the Government to act.

Mr. Graham Brady: It is some three months since the Commissioner for Public Appointments published her report, which found that the Government had engaged in a systematic politicisation of health service appointments, but we have still had no statement or debate in the House on a damning document which criticised them in trenchant terms. As primary care trusts are being set up and appointments to them are being made, is not it particularly important that we should have a statement or a debate? It is essential that the abuses of the process of making public appointments should be stopped and cleared up before those appointments are completed.

Mrs. Beckett: It was made clear at the time that the appointments were made through the proper Nolan process and that no one was appointed who had not come through it. The appointments were not simply made by Ministers. However, when the report was published, the Secretary of State made it plain that he nevertheless felt that there was room for further improvement—the appointments process was, of course, put in place by the previous Government—and he has made those changes.

Miss Anne McIntosh: I thank the Leader of the House for her gracious hospitality in giving Lady Members the welcome opportunity to see Admiralty house this week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] May I raise a matter with which she is familiar from her days at the Department of Trade and Industry and that is of great interest to the Women's Institute: pylons and the overhead transmission of electricity through the Vale of York and neighbouring constituencies? The Yak of York and particular parts of it such as Tockwith regularly lose their electricity supply and the fact that it is to be further jeopardised by pylons is a source of great concern. Will she make time for an early debate on the Floor of the House so that we can consider the merits of underground transmission?

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) for her kind remarks, although I fear that she has stirred up a demand from those around her. I have taken that on board.
I am aware of the anxiety about electricity supply in the hon. Lady's part of the world. She knows that the issues are technically difficult and have been the subject of much discussion and careful consideration. I fear that

I cannot find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future. However, its complexity and relevance to constituencies such as that of the hon. Lady makes it an issue that might well be aired in Westminster Hall. I also point out that Trade and Industry questions will take place on 15 June.

Mr. James Gray: Business questions are an important part of the parliamentary week. Is not it therefore a shame that, of the Government's army of 400 Back Benchers, only six manage to stay for the duration? At its peak, only 15 or 20 attended. That may show that the Government are running out of steam. If they are not, will the Leader of the House dismiss press rumours that the state opening of Parliament will be delayed until January or may not occur, and confirm that it will take place, as usual, in November?

Mrs. Beckett: We do not tend to discuss the date of the state opening of Parliament on the Floor of the House at this stage. As ever, the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the papers.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I share the incredulity of the Leader of the House about the Women's Institute's lack of gratitude and failure to recognise how lucky, privileged and honoured its members are to be living under this Government. In the light of that astonishing lack of gratitude, do the Government intend to publish their annual report, as they have done in the past two years? If so, when will it be published and how much will it cost the taxpayer? Perhaps they have rightly decided to kybosh the entire project and spend the money on essential services for the people of this country.

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot inform the hon. Gentleman offhand about the status and timing of the next report. However, as the hon. Gentleman will recall from previous exchanges on the matter, some 20,000 British citizens bought the report and paid their own money for it at W. H. Smith. Clearly, not everyone shares the hon. Gentleman's view of it.

Mr. John Bercow: When are we to have the much delayed debate on small businesses? Given that 99.6 per cent. of Britain's firms employ fewer than 100 people, and that they account for 50 per cent. of the private sector work force, produce two fifths of our national output and now face a sea of regulation, which is deeper and more hazardous than at any time in our history, does the right hon. Lady agree that it is important to hold a debate without delay to tackle the anxieties of those enterprises?

Mrs. Beckett: As I have already said, I have found time in the current programme not only for an Opposition day, but for four days of debate on general issues. Although there is an undertaking to consider small businesses on a fairly regular basis, there is no commitment to an annual debate on the subject, for the reason that I identified earlier.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that The Economist intelligence unit and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which considered separate matters—financial matters, such as taxation and product regulation—pointed out that our light regulation is one factor that makes the United Kingdom one of the best places in which to do businesses.

Points of Order

Mr. Simon Thomas: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Two constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Hughes of Llanon, wrote to the Prime Minister in October 1999 about means testing disabled people in employment for the independent living fund, with special reference to their son, Colin Hughes, who is a producer for the BBC. The Prime Minister's office acknowledged the letter on 10 November 1999 and said that a reply would shortly be forthcoming from the Department of Health. In the intervening months, my constituents have written to the Department of Health several times and have copied the letters to the Department of Social Security. In the past fortnight, I have written again to the two relevant Ministers. To date, no reply has been received to the initial letter, which was sent in October 1999. Eight and a half months have passed without a reply to a letter on a matter of concern to my constituents. Will you deprecate that lack of activity, Madam Speaker, and urge Ministers to be timely in their replies?

Madam Speaker: I most certainly deprecate the lack of positive response to the hon. Gentleman. I can give no ruling on the matter; it is not a matter for me. I simply say to the Ministers on the Front Bench that I hope they will have noted the hon. Gentleman's words and will follow them up.

Mr. Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In her reply to my request for a debate on the European paper on environmental liability, the Leader of the House gave her reason for overruling the majority of the Committee yesterday. The reason was that there was a majority of Conservative members on that day. Is it a constitutional precedent that Select Committee majorities will be—

Madam Speaker: Order. I know that some hon. Members are extremely concerned about the matter, and I see that another hon. Member is ready to raise another point of order on a similar matter. The hon. Members correctly put their questions to the Leader of the House and she responded. They know the Government's position on the matter; it is not a matter for me.

Opposition Day

[13TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Pensions

Madam Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. David Willetts: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the Government's policy towards pensioners is patronising and confusing; recognises that pensioners want the dignity of receiving social security through their basic state pension as an entitlement and not through complicated special payments; urges therefore that the winter fuel payment, free TV licence, and the age addition, along with funds from abolishing the failed New Deal for Lone Parents and other savings, should all be put into a substantial increase in the basic state pension for 2001/2002 of £5.50 for a single pensioner under 75, £7 for a couple under 75, £7.50 for a single pensioner over 75, and £10 for a couple over 75, together with a commensurate increase in thresholds for benefits and tax allowances, so that the value of the increase is passed on to all pensioners, ensuring that they are better off than at present under this Government's muddled and incompetent policies.
Yesterday, in his now notorious speech to the Women's Institute, the Prime Minister said:
We should put more faith in people's desire to engage in a conversation about the future.
What better way of engaging in a conversation about the future than a Supply day debate in the House?
We called the debate because we wanted pensioners' voices to be heard in the great national conversation called for by the Prime Minister. We want pensioners' voices to be heard because they are saying, loud and clear to all of us in our constituencies, that they are fed up with the Government's patchwork of special measures and gimmicks. Instead, they want money to go into the basic state pension as an entitlement.
The Government's special measures have gone down like a lead balloon—or perhaps we should now say that they have gone down as badly as the Prime Minister at the WI. They have gone down badly with the pensioners whom the Government claim to want to help. The Prime Minister's speech at the WI was received almost as badly as the Minister of State's, when he tried to explain the Government's policies at the National Pensioners Convention the other day. I am sure that he learned what pensioners think about the Government's policies.
Pensioners say over and over again that the Government's schemes are complicated, whereas pensioners want simplicity; the Government's schemes are patronising, whereas pensioners want respect. I shall quote from one of the many letters that I have received from pensioners. The letter arrived in my post this morning from a pensioner in Suffolk, who writes:
I wonder how long it will be for them to get it into their thick heads that pensioners do not want crumbs thrown at them from lord and lady Bountiful Blair's table. . . what they do want is a fair and reasonable pension, and the same amount of pension for all pensioners. We wish to pay our way like everybody else and object strongly when we are made to become forelock touching, cap in hand, second class citizens.


That summarises what millions of pensioners think—not just pensioners, but their representatives. The director general of Help the Aged described the hand-outs as
a patronising pat on the back
and continued:
What older people want is a decent weekly income which they can spend as they wish, and with dignity.

Dr. Lynne Jones: The hon. Gentleman quotes from organisations such as Help the Aged. He knows that those organisations are calling for a large increase in the state pension and a restoration of the link to earnings. Does the hon. Gentleman intend to change Conservative policy from the past, when the party broke that link, and restore it now?

Mr. Willetts: I recognise that many pensioners want the restoration of the earnings link, but neither the Opposition nor the Government are offering that. Pensioners must choose between the options before them. We believe that our option is superior to the only alternative, which is what the Government are doing.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Bearing in mind the call that has just been made for the restoration of the earnings link, will my hon. Friend confirm that although the last Labour Government introduced an earnings link, for the last four years of the Labour Government they refused to implement it in practice? When their Secretary of State, who later became Lord Ennals, was quizzed by Pensioners' Voice about his statutory obligation, he sneeringly replied:
I have an obligation to take the figures into account. I do not have an obligation to get the figures right.

Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend is right in his recollection of the history of that incident.
It is not just pensioners who are critical of the Government's schemes. Labour's activists and supporters say the same thing. Labour councillors lost 600 seats after the last local elections. A survey of Labour councillors who had lost their places on councils revealed that pensioners overwhelmingly preferred to get money straight into their pockets directly from their pension.
That is what even some of the Secretary of State's colleagues have been saying in the privacy of unattributable briefings in the Lobby. One Labour MP was quoted as saying:
It's like a poor employer who robs his workers every week, then gives them a turkey for Christmas.
Perhaps one of the Labour Members who are present today said that. Perhaps it was the Minister of State, speaking unattributably; who knows? [HON. MEMBERS: "Deny it."] I will not ask Labour Members to deny it. That would be too embarrassing for them.
Another Labour MP said:
It's terrible. The Tory leader is saying in public what we have been saying in private for months.
That is what Labour Members think. The Secretary of State has even got his former ministerial colleagues saying it. A former Defence Minister has said that pensioners believe that winter fuel payments and

concessionary television licences are diversionary measures and that pensioners want an increase, week on week, in the basic pension.

Mr. Steve Webb: Why, then, did the hon. Gentleman tell the House:
We have no plans to remove the winter fuel payment. —[Official Report, 7 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 33.]

Mr. Willetts: I was very careful. We have listened, we have learned, and we have now announced our policy. The hon. Gentleman's party fought the last election on a manifesto that pledged it simply to linking pensions to prices; subsequently, it changed its mind and said that it wanted to link them to earnings after all. That is a wild and uncosted policy, so that was a dangerous intervention.

Mr. John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend think that opposition to the Government's policies on pensioners explains the drop of over 1,000 in membership of the Sedgefield constituency Labour party, the recent emergence of a rebel breakaway group, and its decision to distribute a subversive newsletter that excoriates the Prime Minister's record?

Mr. Willetts: I am sure that my hon. Friend has made a powerful point. I am only surprised that he said "1,000" rather than "1,007 precisely", in the style with which we are so familiar. Anyway, he is entirely correct.
The fact is that pensioners do not support what the Government are doing, Labour councillors do not support what the Government are doing, and the Secretary of State's own Back Benchers do not believe in what the Government are doing. The question is why the Government plough on with such an unpopular and ill-considered policy, when everyone in the country apart from the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues knows that it is a nonsense. That is the real question to which we would like to hear the Secretary of State's answer.

Kali Mountford: Is it not the case that state pensions have been paid for through national insurance contributions? Is the hon. Gentleman now advocating paying for pensions in some other way, given that his sums do not add up?

Mr. Willetts: I will take the hon. Lady through the sums in a moment, if she wishes me to do so. The fact is, however, that we are talking about a carefully costed package that involves no increase in total social security spending. The national insurance fund is in surplus. Pensioners want a charge on the national insurance fund as part of a contributory entitlement, and it could easily be afforded.

Mr. Edward Leigh: May I gently chide my hon. Friend? He talks about the Secretary of State. One thing that is really frustrating in life is, having dreamt up a good policy, finding that someone much cleverer has come up with it first. Could that explain the petulance behind the Secretary of State's remarks? Perhaps he was planning to introduce the policy, but my hon. Friend got there first.

Mr. Willetts: Who knows? It would be interesting to find out. The Government have been busy briefing away on all sorts of options. It would be fascinating to learn whether they have listened to pensioners as we have.
Let me tackle the sort of arguments that we may hear from the Secretary of State. I am sure that he will not want to answer the question that has just been put. I suspect that he will say that the Government are doing the right thing, because they are targeting help on the pensioners who need it most. That is what he has been claiming. However, his claim does not stand up to scrutiny.
What we are doing is replacing the various special payments with a consolidated increase in the basic pension. The Secretary of State's special payments are very ill targeted. He has put much more money into the special payments than he has into the minimum income guarantee. This year, £1 billion more is going into the special payments than into the minimum income guarantee. Next year, £0.5 billion more will go into special payments than the guarantee. The money that the Government have put in has gone, above all, into the special schemes that we are consolidating into the basic pension. Nothing in our proposal affects minimum income guarantee expenditure. It is all about consolidating those gimmicks.
I was surprised by some of the Secretary of State's claims about the targeting of his measures. On 16 December 1999, in a press notice from his Department, he said:
The annual Winter Fuel Payment will be payable to everyone over 60.
I invite him to say whether that is an accurate and true statement on access to the winter fuel payment scheme. He knows that that is not an accurate statement of the way in which the scheme works. He knows very well—if he did not know when he issued that press release, he should have—that winter fuel payments are not available to pensioners in residential accommodation or nursing homes who are on income support. They are available to pensioners who are in nursing homes or residential accommodation who are not on income support, but they are not available if pensioners are on income support. There are 200,000 pensioners on income support who do not receive the payment, whereas more affluent pensioners in residential accommodation do receive it. It is nonsense.
Either the Secretary of State did not understand his policy when he made that statement, or he was deliberately misleading. The fact is that what we are doing, putting the money into the basic pension, is better targeted than the measures that it replaces. It is better targeted because the quirks, oddities and unpredictable effects of those schemes—which, to be honest, I do not think the Secretary of State fully appreciated when they were introduced—will be replaced by a steady, reliable simple system. Better than that, we are giving the extra money to the over-75s in particular. We all know that older pensioners tend to be the poorer pensioners.

Mr. Phil Hope: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman for the past 10 minutes or so and I have not heard one word of apology for the 18 years that resulted in 1 million pensioners living below the poverty line in 1997—[Interruption.] The Labour Government have targeted and tackled that, much to my pleasure and much

to the annoyance of Opposition Members. Will he now apologise to the 1 million pensioners whom he betrayed for more than 18 years? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We cannot haves a situation where hon. Members are shouted down.

Mr. Willetts: The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) is rash enough to make that point. Let me quote some figures. During our years in office, there was an average increase in the net income for pensioners of 64 per cent. on top of inflation. Total public spending on pensioners as a proportion of gross domestic product was higher in our last year of office than it is under the present Government. During our time in office, there was a reduction in the number of pensioners dependent on means-tested benefits. Compared with the present Government, what we achieved is a jolly sight better. Pensioners are suffering.

Mr. Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willetts: No. I will get on. I will not waste any more of the House's time on that matter.
The claim that it is all to do with targeting the money better does not stack up. The real reason why we have all those special gimmicks lies at the door of 11 Downing street. It is all to do with the Chancellor.
This is a Chancellor who, a week or two before any Budget or any major economic statement to the House, suddenly thinks "I need a gimmick. I want a special scheme. I need to announce that I am transforming the tax and benefit system." No Budget statement is complete without a radical change to that system.
We have debated already the impact of that on families. We have the working families tax credit, the child care credit, the children's tax credit, the integrated children's credit, and the employment credit. The Chancellor called the Budget that introduced all that lot a Budget for stability. I do not know what a Budget for a bit of change would look like.
When it comes to pensioners, the Chancellor does the same thing. We have a different scheme, changes in the rules on entitlement, different amounts of money. It is unfair on pensioners, who want simplicity and reliability. They do not want Labour gimmicks.

Mr. Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willetts: I do not think so; no.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Willetts: Oh, all right.

Mr. Hope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Quite clearly, he is prepared to answer questions about his own policy. Is he prepared to accept that the criminal act that he is announcing as part of his policy entails walking up to pensioners, taking out their wallets or purses, taking money that has been given to them by this Labour Government, putting that money into an envelope, and giving it back to them? Does he also


accept that that cons no one, particularly not the pensioners in my constituency, and that it would not make the poorest pensioners a single penny better off?

Mr. Willetts: Even if there were not a single extra penny for pensioners in our package, it would still be the right thing to do—because it would be part of the guaranteed, contributory basic pension, instead of all those complicated gimmicks. Actually, however, we are putting £320 million extra on top of the Government's provision and financing that by making savings elsewhere in social security. Nevertheless, even if we were not making that extra provision, our package would still be the right thing to do, because pensioners want the money as part of a guaranteed, weekly entitlement.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: rose

Ms Claire Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willetts: No. I want to make a bit more progress, and then I shall give way to the hon. Lady.
I do not want to leave the impression that all the blame is being heaped on the head of the poor, wretched Chancellor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because the blame has to be shared between No. 11 and No. 10 Downing street. The Prime Minister cannot be allowed to escape responsibility for the situation. Pensioners are so angry about the 75p increase not only because of its financial effects, but because of what it tells them about new Labour and new Labour's attitude to older people. One pensioner said that the Prime Minister
thinks people like me are old has-beens, who aren't important or glamorous, people who they think can go to the back of the queue.
The quote describes new Labour's modernising, young Britain attitude to pensioners. The Government have no respect for pensioners and no understanding of them, and that is why they have made such a mess of their pensions policy. That attitude goes to the heart of the Government. That is the attitude of the Prime Minister and those who surround him.

Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the effect of his proposals on a pensioner's income would be a change of 42p per week?

Mr. Willetts: All pensioners will be better off under our proposals. Even if there were not a single extra penny, as I said, it would be the right thing to do; but there are gains for pensioners on top of that. The size of the gains will depend on the personal circumstances of the pensioner. They will vary also because the schemes that our proposals will replace are so complicated. We are providing a reliable weekly payment instead of all the special schemes.

Ms Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Willetts: No; I want to get back to the point that I was making about the Prime Minister.
We know from the people surrounding the Prime Minister what Labour really thinks of pensioners.
We know what the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said at a private meeting. The Sunday Times reports:
Mandelson appeared to have written pensioners off as a group who were not worth cultivating.
He said that there was "no mileage" in them.
The chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, at the same meeting, is alleged to have said that pensioners are "racist". I do not know whether that is true, but it is certainly true that—as he said—they are "predominantly Conservative". We certainly know that that is true.

Ms Sally Keeble: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the most recent edition of Age Concern's magazine, which states that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) said nothing of the sort? That was stated in the pensioners' own publication—which the hon. Gentleman, like me, should have received this morning.

Mr. Willetts: I thank the hon. Lady. I am grateful for that point, which I shall consider carefully.
Let me just deal with something that seems to epitomise the new Labour approach to pensioners and why, at No. 10, they have got it so catastrophically wrong and are so out of touch with the views of pensioners across the country.
There is a report entitled "Ministers want trendy name for pensioners", which states:
Ministers want to "rebrand" pensioners with a trendy name that will appeal to younger people …
Ministers believe words like "pensions"—
perhaps that is why they do not put them up enough—
or "elderly" carry a grey imagine which deters younger people from thinking ahead.
So, what have Ministers done? The report states:
Some of Whitehall's finest minds are working on the problem, while the Government is also seeking outside help to try to come up with a new title.
While the Government's finest minds have been thinking about the naming of pensioners, Conservative Members have been thinking about how we can help pensioners. Our package is about substantial increases in the basic state pension.

Ms Ward: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that is the right thing to do and that it will benefit pensioners? Is he suggesting that he will increase the amount of money that will go to pensioners year on year? If he is, perhaps he will tell us where that money is coming from.

Mr. Willetts: The increase in the basic state pension will be part of that pension, and uprated in line with prices thereafter. That is the right way to do it, and we make no apology.
As there are some Labour Members in the Chamber, I shall briefly clarify our position for a few of them, so that when they are in their constituencies they do not perpetrate the lies about our policies that have been perpetrated over the past 10 days.

Several hon.: rose—

Mr. Willetts: No, I shall not give way. I want to make some progress.
Two important points were made clear in the original announcement by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. They relate to two understandable concerns of pensioners, which were tackled at the beginning when we announced our policy. First, there is the concern—I understand the basis for it—that the special payments are tax exempt and the basic state pension is taxable. Some pensioners have asked, "Does that mean that we shall pay more tax as a result of this proposal?" It is not our intention that the proposal should include some special behind-the-scenes arrangement to collect more tax from pensioners. We do not believe in stealth taxes and it is the Government who have introduced them, not us. That is why my right hon. Friend said in his original statement:
We would also adjust tax allowances for older people to compensate pensioners for any extra that they might otherwise pay.
It is not the purpose of our proposal either to increase—[Interruption.] There is no increase or reduction in tax. The tax position will be unaffected and neutral.
Secondly, the Secretary of State has claimed recently—perhaps it is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister received the slow handclap by the Women's Institute when he tried to make the same point, but I do not know whether he managed to deliver that part of his prepared speech—that 2 million of the poorest pensioners would lose out because they would have an offsetting reduction in their entitlement to means-tested benefits.
The package is clearly costed, simple and straightforward. There is no messing about. It is costed on the basis that the money will go to all 10.5 million pensioners. There are no offsets or reductions in entitlement to means-tested benefits. Again, I shall quote the original statement, which says that
we would adjust means tested benefits to ensure that the poorest pensioners gain at least as much as other pensioners.
That has been clear all along. The Secretary of State should stop pretending that he does not know that that is our policy.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman put his hand on his heart and tell the House that had the Government not put in extra money for pensioners, he would still be advocating his proposal—in a way, very welcome—to increase the basic state pension? Furthermore, the next time that we have low inflation—as a result of the state pension being linked to inflation, the result is an increase of the state pension by a paltry few pence—will he argue that he will increase the pension by more than those few pence?

Mr. Willetts: I think that hidden in that intervention there was a tribute to the wisdom of the Conservative policy on pensioners. I shall take that in the spirit in which it was intended.
As in so many areas of policy, we are clearing up a mess that was created by the Government. They are the people who have created muddle and confusion. They make the benefit system more complicated every time that they make a new statement and introduce a new policy. We are offering pensioners respect for their ability to manage their own money and their own entitlements in the way that they wish. We are offering them the dignity of an entitlement to a contributory benefit. The Prime

Minister was rumbled yesterday, and the Secretary of State has been rumbled. Pensioners have rumbled the Government.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'condemns the Opposition for making no commitment to the welfare of either today's or tomorrow's pensioners, opposing every step the Government has taken to help pensioners and producing proposals for next year's basic pension uprating which amount to bribing pensioners with money which is already theirs; recognises the legacy of increasing pensioner poverty left by the last Government; applauds the Government for doing more to help all pensioners, spending £6½ billion more than planned by the last Government, but most for those who need help most by concentrating half the additional money on the poorest quarter of pensioners; congratulates the Government for tackling poverty directly with the Minimum Income Guarantee, helping take-up through better publicity and simplified claims procedures; supports the Government's plans to help those pensioners who just fail to qualify for the Minimum Income Guarantee by raising the capital limits to 12,000 from April 2001 and committing itself to bringing forward proposals for a Pensioner Credit which will reward thrift; congratulates the Government for helping all pensioners with their costs, including Winter Fuel Payments and free television licences for people aged 75 and over; and applauds the Government's strategy for ensuring that, in the future, nobody who has put in a lifetime of work or caring need retire onto means-tested benefits, including a commitment to the basic state pension, a state second pension which does more for 18 million people including those on low and moderate pay, with caring responsibilities or broken work records because of disability, and new flexible, low cost, stakeholder pensions.'.
What was rumbled within hours of its announcement was the Conservative policy on pensions. It did not stand much examination before it became perfectly obvious that the Conservatives, having opposed every extra penny that we were spending on supporting pensioners, were taking that money and offering to spend it in a different way. There was no new money. The public and the rest of us should beware of Tories bearing gifts, because we have some experience of what happened during the 18 years that they were in government. They were not noticeably the pensioners' friend or on the pensioners' side. They left 2 million pensioners living in poverty. The gap in incomes between the better-off and the poorest pensioners was as great in 1997 as it had been 40 years earlier, and one third of people working today were heading for a retirement in which they would be dependent on benefits from day 1 because of inadequate second pension provision. Of course, we also all remember the millions of people who wore this-sold personal private pensions—something that the Conservatives encouraged when they were in office.
Today we have heard the first big idea from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). The Conservatives are trying to bribe pensioners with money that they were going to get anyway from the Labour Government. The Conservatives ate giving money with one hand and snatching it away immediately with the other.
Let us look at what the Tories are promising this time. I remember taking part in an interview with the hon. Gentleman on flu "Today" programme on the morning of his great announcement. He said that he was going to give £5 more to single pensioners. It did not take long to find out how he had reached the sum of £5. It is quite easy:


£3 from the winter fuel payment, which we introduced and the Conservatives opposed, plus at least £2 from the inflation increase. The hon. Gentleman is trying to tell pensioners that he has £5 of new money, which he knows full well they were going to get anyway.
However, the hon. Gentleman's policy did not last for very long before it began to fall apart. When I heard him say that the House of Commons Library had helped him, I began to get suspicious. During the 13 years that I have been in the House, I have often found that when people start praying in aid the House of Commons Library, it is as well to see exactly what the Library said. As we know, it is a reputable and scrupulously impartial research organisation.
I asked the House of Commons Library—or, to be absolutely accurate, because I do not want to mislead the House, I got my parliamentary private secretary to ask the House of Commons Library—what it had said to the hon. Gentleman. The researcher said:
Taking into account his proposals to abolish Winter Fuel Payments, free TV licences for the over-75s, and the Christmas Bonus these increases would leave single pensioners under 75 £0.42 per week better off.
There we have it. Within hours of the announcement being made, it turns out to be not £5, not £7 and not £10, but 42p. That is what the Tories are promising pensioners. The Tories should bear in mind the fact that one reason they lost office after 18 years was that people did not believe a word that they said. Today we have heard yet another attempt to con people into believing that the Tories are offering more money, when the truth is that they are offering 42p. As the Library I helpfully goes on to say:
No account is taken of income tax effects.
The figure also fails to take account of the fact that many pensioners will lose benefits.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I should like the Secretary of State to clear up what he has just said, for the sake of accuracy. Did he say that he asked his PPS to ask the Library to provide the same information that was provided to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)? Is he aware that the Library is usually very strict in how it presents information to individual Members? If the Secretary of State is saying that the information that was given to my hon. Friend by the Library was also given to his PPS, I hope that he is misleading the House.

Mr. Darling: I do not know the proper procedure for this situation, but I am more than happy to place in the Library the information that my PPS—my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey)—obtained. It was a proper inquiry, and before the hon. Gentleman gets on his high horse, he should remember that when the Tories were in government they frequently asked the Library what information it had provided to Opposition Members.
The letter starts by saying:
You asked about David Willetts' plans for increases to the Retirement Pension, which he has stated as being based on work by the House of Commons Library.
It continues by making the point that the answer is 42p. Lest the Tories think that I am being unreasonable, or that the Library was being unreasonable in telling us what it has done, I shall explain why the sum of 42p has some

credibility. About five hours after the hon. Member for Havant appeared on the "Today" programme, his colleague the shadow Chancellor appeared on "The World at One". [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] It is no wonder that he is not here, because I am about to tell the House what he had to say. When he was asked about the policy, which hon. Members will recall had been spun across every newspaper the night before, he said:
We are making quite a limited announcement today.
He was certainly right about that. He continued, with refreshing candour:
We are not over selling this at all; it is a one-off policy.
Of course it is a one-off policy, because there is no way that, with their tax guarantee, the Tories can find more money for pensioners in the future. The shadow Chancellor went on to say:
It is money which is already being spent.
We have had smoke and mirrors from the Tory party.
The shadow Chancellor made other revealing points, which bring me on to the point made by the hon. Member for Havant about losers. Under the hon. Gentleman's proposals, some 2 million of the poorest pensioners would lose out because the Tories will not give an undertaking to increase the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings. Indeed, the Tories are against the minimum income guarantee, or at least they were until two weeks ago. The shadow Chancellor was revealing on that point, because when he was asked about an extension of the MIG and whether it would, in time, be linked to earnings, he said:
You are leading me now into a policy area in which we haven't yet made a statement.
He continued:
all other announcements about our attitude towards pensions and the minimum income guarantee and so on are a matter for the future.
There we have it. The shadow Chancellor made it clear that the Tory party was performing a smoke and mirrors trick, by promising money that was already being spent. He said that it was not a big deal, because the net effect, after all was said and done, was 42p extra.

Mr. Willetts: rose

Mr. Darling: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I notice that he said on a subsequent television appearance when he was asked about the minimum income guarantee:
In the long term, how you uprate the value of income support, the minimum income guarantee, is indeed a matter for decision.
Perhaps he will tell us his decision now.

Mr. Willetts: The Secretary of State well knows that he has made no commitment to guarantee the earnings uprating of the minimum income guarantee beyond the life of this Parliament. I ask him to endorse the statement in his pamphlet entitled "Are you just getting by when you could be getting more?", which is the latest guide for pensioners. It describes the minimum income guarantee as
the name we give to Income Support for pensioners.
It is our old income support for pensioners that the Government have just renamed after a Soviet fighter aircraft.

Mr. Darling: If that is the best that the Tories can do, pensioners will soon see what the Tory party is all about.
We have increased the amount of money that goes to the poorest pensioners, because—as I said at the outset of my speech—one of the problems we inherited was the fact that 2 million pensioners were living in poverty, and no decent society should tolerate that.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Darling: I will in a moment. I am coming to a subject that I have no doubt is near to the hon. Gentleman's heart, but for entirely the wrong reasons.
The hon. Member for Havant has said that he will save money elsewhere in the social security system. We know that the Conservatives would scrap the winter fuel bonus, free television licences and the Christmas bonus, but they have two other proposals as well. They would raid the social fund, from which money goes to people who are absolutely poor and sometimes destitute, and scrap the new deal for lone parents—and all for 42p.

Shona McIsaac: My right hon. Friend said that the Opposition plan to scrap the winter fuel allowance. Does he agree that that would be very serious, as men between 60 and 65 would lose an allowance that has just been extended to them? The Tory proposals would not give any extra help to that group of people, who would be much worse off if they voted Conservative.

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. When the Conservatives announced the 42p increase proposal, they were less keen to emphasise that they would scrap measures that help many people in this country.
With regard to the new deal for lone parents, we have been able to spend £6.5 billion more on supporting pensioner incomes in part because we have cut the bills of economic failure, as we promised to do at the general election when we inherited high levels of unemployment. One of the ways we have achieved that is through the new deal for lone parents.
Last week, the hon. Member for Havant announced, for I think the third time, that he would scrap the new deal for lone parents. The Government are acting to cut the numbers of people who are out of work but could be in work. So far, 150,000 people have joined the new deal for lone parents, and 50,000 of them have found jobs. In addition, nearly 15,000 have gone into education or training. The cost of that is £1,300 a job, or about 10 weeks' worth of benefit. The programme helps people get into work.
The Conservatives plan to scrap the new deal for lone parents and to remove income support the minute a child reaches the age of 11. After that, there would be absolutely nothing. The hon. Member for Havant should remember that another legacy of the previous Conservative Government was the more than 1 million lone parents on benefit. At Tory party conference after Tory party conference, in order to give delegates some cheap thrills those lone parents got nothing but abuse.

Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Secretary of State confirm that only about 5 per cent. of those invited to take part in the new deal for lone parents have emerged from the programme with a

successful conclusion? What estimate has he made of the percentage of those lone parents who would have got jobs without the intervention of the new deal?

Mr. Darling: First, 90 per cent. of people who are eligible join the new deal. From next April, a condition of receiving benefit will be that all lone parents—and several other categories of people—must take part in compulsory interviews for training. The economy has 1 million vacancies, and there are 1 million more jobs than existed when we took over government. We are determined to ensure that every one who can work should work. We are achieving that through active intervention in the labour market because we know that, left to its own devices, the market provides no help at all.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Darling: I had better give way to the hon. Gentleman before he gets too excited.

Mr. Bercow: The breakdown of the NIRS2 computer system deprived hundreds of thousands of pensioners of their just entitlements. Fully 21 months have passed since the Secretary of 5 State told the House that the matter would be sorted out within weeks. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that 280,000 pensioners are still waiting for their rebates, and that £140 million of compensation has still to be paid?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on one point. The computer did not break down—it never worked in the first place, and the bill for that should be sent to Conservative central office. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was daft enough to raise this matter, so I shall tell him that the contract to replace the national insurance recording system was entered into in 1995, and had to be completely rethought a year later. When the time came to switch the computer system on, it did not work. It was yet another mess that we had to clear up. The position has now been stabilised, no one is losing their money and we are clearing up the mess that the Conservative party left us.

Mr. Brady: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. John Greenway: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hear shouting from both Back Benches. Right hon. and hon. Members cannot do that—they must listen to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Darling: That is very good advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will give way to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) now. Why not?

Mr. Greenway: This is a very serious point. I want to bring the Secretary of State back to the intervention of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac). It was my constituent, Mr. John Taylor, who took the Government to the European Court of Justice over the winter fuel payments for men over 60. I resisted the notion that this was a good idea. Will the Secretary of State tell me whether, but for the court case, the Government would


have extended the winter fuel payment to men over 60, and whether doing so represents good value for money for the social security budget?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman can tell his constituent that we will be giving him the money but the Conservative party will be taking it away. I am sure that that will be a great comfort to him.

Mr. Greenway: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Darling: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] Look how excited the Conservatives get once we expose their policies for what they are.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend has demonstrated that to make this bogus pensions increase offer, the Conservatives have been recycling money already spent. Is it not also interesting that the Conservatives have recycled Front Benchers and Whips on to the Back Benches to intervene, in an effort to disguise the fact that hardly any of their MPs have bothered to turn up for what they say is a major issue? It is their debate.

Mr. Darling: I understand that that is indeed the case. If the Conservative party policy was so good, surely some Back Benchers might have turned up to cheer on their colleagues. Instead, we have the unpaid payroll vote sitting behind them. Now I want to make some progress.
Scrapping the new deal for lone parents would be a false economy. If we allow more and more people to remain unemployed, there will not be money for the health service, pensions or anything else. The hon. Member for Havant was desperate to make his sums add up. He needed to raid something else from the social security budget, so he went for a measure that would be entirely self-defeating, as well as raiding the social fund. The social fund is necessary because, unfortunately, there are people who have no money and could be destitute. Presumably the Tories would just say to them, "Tough luck."
The House of Commons Library has confirmed that as a result of the hon. Gentleman's proposals, the best that a pensioner could hope for would be 42p—before tax, of course. However, he forgot to mention that his party also has an interesting policy with regard to pensioners and the national health service—with their 42p, they would have to fund expenditure that is presently free on the national health.
The Conservatives' health policy is that hip and knee replacements and hernia and cataract operations should be covered by private medical insurance. This is an extraordinary turn of events. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, there are a lot of Front Benchers sitting opposite but here they are, trying to distance themselves from their party's policy.
I thought that it would be interesting to find out exactly how much those operations would cost. I looked at information from BUPA and other private health care providers, and found that a cataract operation costs between £1,800 and £2,400. A knee replacement—

Mr. Brady: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Darling: Perhaps we have a BUPA salesman here who will tell me how much it will cost.

Mr. Brady: I am sorry to disappoint the Secretary of State, but I am not a BUPA salesman. However, he ought to realise that the Labour Government are the private health industry's best ever salesmen. Since they took office, 150,000 people have been forced to pay for their operations because NHS waiting lists are so long. That is happening under the right hon. Gentleman's Government, not under the Conservatives.

Mr. Darling: We are actually increasing spending on the NHS by a third—something the Conservatives oppose. Obviously, the matter causes the Conservatives much distress. However, at the next election, when our two parties set out their stalls before the electorate and the Conservatives say they will give pensioners 42p more on their pension, I hope they will also say that, under their proposals, according to their health spokesman, conditions such as
hip and knee replacements, hernia and cataract operations
should be covered by private, medical insurance. If people do not have £7,800 for a hip replacement, they will have to try to get insurance for such conditions—but just try to do that as a 60-year-old.
What we have from the Conservative party is a complete con. It should surprise none of us, because they tried to con people for 18 years before they were finally rumbled.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: It may have escaped my right hon. Friend's attention that, when it was cold enough for long enough—usually when it was too late—even the Tories used to make some cold weather payments. Are they not now proposing to scrap the winter fuel allowance without making any compensatory arrangements for the cold?

Mr. Darling: All of us who are familiar with the cold weather payment scheme were struck by the fact that it had to be cold for an awfully long time before it was triggered. The nature of the British climate made that quite difficult. One did not receive much and when one did, it was long after the event.
The advantage of the winter fuel payment is that it is tax free; it is not taken into account for benefits and it arrives just at the time when pensioners begin to worry about whether they can turn up the heating. That is not something that has ever bothered a large number of those from whom we are hearing this afternoon.

Mr. Ian Davidson: The Secretary of State is correct to dismiss the cynical approach of the Tories, but does he agree that the benefits that we are providing could be better targeted? I draw to his attention the fact that recent studies from Bristol university show that only 51 per cent. of people in my constituency are expected to live until they reach the age of 75, whereas in Eastwood the figure is 66 per cent. and in some of the better-off parts of England it is more than 70 per cent. That means that free television licences, targeted at the over-75s, actually miss out half the people in my constituency—[Interruption. They will die before those licences are available. Would it not be better to re-target the provision at those in greatest need?
May I say that I was very glad—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has certainly been able to say a lot during an intervention.
I call Mr. Secretary Darling— [Interruption.] Order. Before I call the Secretary of State again, I appeal once more to hon. Members. We cannot have shouting across the Floor of the House— [Interruption.] Order. I am not addressing my remarks only to the Opposition, but to all hon. Members. We cannot have shouting across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Darling: I think my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) would readily admit that not all his constituents die before the age of 75. However, the report to which he referred identifies the problems that occur when people are born into low-income households and live on low incomes throughout their working life. As sure as night follows day, they will die on a low income. That is precisely why the Government have introduced a range of strategies to increase the amount of money going into households with children. That is why we increased child benefit by so much and why we are introducing the integrated child credit. We are helping parents into work through the working families tax credit and a variety of means—all of which are set out in our annual report "Opportunity for All" and all of which are opposed by the Conservative party.
That leads me to another point I wanted to make. The contrast between the Labour Government and the Conservative Opposition is that we are tackling the problems we inherited, some of which had not developed during the previous 18 years but had been around for longer than that. However, if we do not sort them out, we shall prolong a wholly unacceptable situation.
First, we need a pension strategy so that in future everyone can retire on a decent income after a lifetime of hard work. Secondly, we must ensure that pensioners do not live in poverty. That is why we are spending an extra £6.5 billion on pensioner incomes during this Parliament£2 billion more than it would have cost to restore the earnings link. It is important that half of that £6.5 billion will go to the poorest third of pensioners. We are spending more because we believe that we should be doing so and, as a first priority, we are spending that money on those pensioners who need it most.
As a result of what we are doing, all pensioners will be £3 a week better off because of the winter fuel allowance. The free television licence for the over-75s is worth a further £2 a week. However, because we want to tackle pensioner poverty, we are ensuring that the poorest pensioners, who receive the minimum income guarantee, will have at least £8.40 a week more, and up to £10.65 a week more for the oldest. That makes them better off than under the Tories—£8 and £10 a week better off, with more than that for couples. That money is over and above inflation. It is a real gain for those people.
I make no apology for making that our first priority. It is quite wrong that, at a time when many people retire with a good state second pension or an occupational pension, other people still live on a pension that is lower than income support. That is why we increased pensions by so much for the 1.5 million pensioners who lost out as a result of the situation we inherited.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: rose—

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Mr. Darling: I shall give way to both hon. Gentlemen in a moment. I am conscious of the fact that it is their Opposition day, so I do not want to take up too much time, although even after their Whips and Front-Bench spokesmen leave the Chamber—I may be wrong, but I suspect that it will not be long before they do so—there may not be many Opposition Members who want to speak. However, just to show how generous I am, I give way to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson).

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way to a humble Back Bencher. He must be the only Member who does not receive lots of communications from pensioners, all saying that they want not gimmicks but a decent pension. Surely, that is the basis of our proposal.

Mr. Darling: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench team will have noted his plea not to remain on the Back Benches for much longer.
I will deal with his second point. What pensioners want any Government to do is to increase the amount of money available to them. However, many pensioners accept the fact that the first priority must be to deal with those pensioners who were living in absolute poverty as a result of the situation left to us by the Tories. The second stage is clearly to help those pensioners who have modest savings or modest amounts of capital and who also lost out under the Conservatives.
As a first step, we have doubled the capital limits. The Tories did nothing about that for most of the time they were in government. We have doubled the capital limits that entitle more people to receive the extra help they need.
For the longer term, we are ensuring that a system will be in place to enable people to build up a decent pension in future. It is worth noting that, in 30 years' time, nearly a quarter of the population will be retired. That is why we need proper debate and an understanding of the need to save more, so that people can retire on decent pensions.

Ms Keeble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said that he was going to talk about the future of pensions, he said nothing about that? He failed to address the pension needs of women, including the many women who work part-time, married women who have no pension rights of their own and those women who choose to stay at home and look after their families or disabled relatives and who currently lose their pension rights. Will my right hon. Friend say something about all that we are doing to support women—especially those who choose to stay at home and look after their families?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend's intervention is timely. The minimum income guarantee helps a large number of people who retired without a full contribution record and whose basic state pension is much lower than £67. The minimum income guarantee gives them help that was not available in the past, because the Conservative party was never that bothered about the matter.
Furthermore, we are putting in place pension reforms that will last in the longer term. When the basic state pension was introduced, it was always intended that people would have a second pension in addition—either from the state or an occupational or works pension. Indeed, one of the reasons that the average pensioner income is £132 at present—well above the basic state pension—is that many people are retiring on occupational pensions that they took out 20 or 30 ye are ago. That is why it has gone up. We want to add to that.
It has long been recognised that there never was a golden age in which the basic state pension was worth enough on its own. It has always been looked on as a foundation. One reason that the Labour Government of the 1970s introduced the state earnings-related pension scheme was that they recognised that both state and funded pensions had a role to play in increasing pensioner income.
The problem we have today is that, although many people have good occupational pensions, too many people have retired on the basic state pension alone or just above that.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Darling: No, because I want to make some progress
We have introduced the new stakeholder pension because it will give flexible low-cost pensions to nearly 5 million people who until now had nothing other than personal private pensions that were probably inappropriate for many of them. As has been said, we are reforming SERPS to give more security in retirement for 18 million people—carers and disabled people with broken work records—who did not receive enough help under SERPS.
I repeat the example yet again. Under SERPS, someone who earned less than £6,000 would get about £14 a week. Under the new state second pension, the sum rises to £54 a week. It is heavily redistributive— if I may use that term—towards those people who lost our in the past. We are helping pensioners today; we are tackling the appalling Tory legacy of pensioner poverty and we are also making sure that, for the future, people can retire on a decent income.
What we heard two weeks ago and what we have heard this afternoon—I notice that the hon. Member for Havant did not dwell too much on what exactly he was promising—have made the issue abundantly clear. As the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo), the shadow Chancellor, said the Conservatives' policy does not constitute a big announcement. Essentially, it amounts to 42p. The Conservatives seek to spend the same money that we are already spending. We are tackling pensioner poverty and ensuring that people can retire on a decent income. We are making sure that 18 million low-paid carers and disabled people receive more. We are rebuilding the NHS, not trying to shuffle pensioners into private care. We are spending far more than the Conservative party ever would or ever will. I urge the House to reject the main motion.

Mr. Steve Webb: I am delighted that the Conservative Opposition have chosen the subject of pensions. We have spent much of the past three years wondering what they would do if they were in office, and we have now heard the first instalment. We have heard what they would do on day one, but we are still hazy as to what would happen after that.
As the Secretary of State for Social Security rightly pointed out—I heartily agree with him—42p will be the net benefit of the Conservatives' proposal. Where the Government will be associated with being the party of 75p for pensioners, the Conservatives, when they go into the next election, will be known as the party of 42p for pensioners. Although we have not finalised the Liberal Democrats' manifesto, I assure the House that our pledge on the basic state pension will substantially exceed 42p and 75p.

Mr. Bob Russell: That is why Ronnie is retiring.

Mr. Webb: Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) is looking forward to benefiting from our pledge.
The speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and Conservative literature say different things to different people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I find that shocking. The Conservatives have put in their leaflets that 75p is inadequate for pensioners and the hon. Gentleman described the sum as paltry. However, when I challenged him on 7 February and asked him what he would do if he were Secretary of State, he said:
We would carry on increasing the basic pension in line with prices.—[Official Report, 7 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 33.]
In other words, the increase would have been 75p if he had been in power. Today, he said that, once the Conservatives have given pensioners their own money back in a different way, the pension would continue to be linked to prices. As I understand it, that is the Conservatives' policy
If pensioners vote Conservative, they will receive the money that they are getting already delivered in a more sensible way, and I have no problem with that. I have made that point in the House on several occasions. Long before the hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative party had no plans to remove the winter fuel payment, I asked whether it was an administratively sensible way to provide the money, given that it costs £10 million to £15 in administration costs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) received a letter from a constituent saying:
Dear Ed … I have an Honours Degree from Cambridge and was an Under Secretary in DHSS. I find the page of "Winter Fuel Payment Notes" just about as dense a 600-700 word essay as one could imagine. And yet I am required to sign
that I have read and understood the leaflet. Those notes are just one example of the bureaucracy involved in the system.
I have no problem with the principle of delivering money to pensioners through the basic pension. We have been consistent on that point. Our amendment on the


Order Paper objects to the pretence that, by voting Conservative, pensioners will receive £5 of new money that will make them better off, and not just by 42p

Mr. Willetts: We are making a bit of progress. Faced with the choice simply between what is happening under this Government's proposals and our proposals for the consolidation of the money, which does the hon. Gentleman think is better?

Mr. Webb: The Conservative party's package contains several elements. The first is to pay the winter fuel payment through the pension, and I do not have a problem with that. However, we do not support the abolition of the free television licences for those aged over 75 or the abolition of an age addition.

Ms Keeble: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's criticism that the Conservatives' policy means all sorts of different things. I looked up the Liberal Democrats' policy on their website and clicked on the word "policy". The page that flashed up said "No documents."

Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady is very welcome to check my personal website.
The critical point is that—to coin a phrase—pensioners were not born yesterday. They can see through the Conservative party's offer, which will mean that they would get back their own money.

Ms Ward: I appreciate the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). However, let us consider traditional manifestos that are set out in writing. If I recall it correctly, the Liberal Democrats' policy at the last election was to retain the basic state pension's link with prices. Have they now changed their policy? The policies that they expound in the House are very different from the ones that they expound outside.

Mr. Webb: If the hon. Lady attended debates on pensions a little more often, she would know that, for some years, we have advocated a better deal for pensioners than that contained in our previous manifesto. Politicians are often criticised for failing to live up to their manifesto promises. I doubt that a single pensioner in my constituency will criticise me for doing more than I promised when they elected me. I suspect that they will welcome that.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: In the interests of his constituents in Northavon, will the hon. Gentleman spell out exactly how much better off they would be if, by some extraordinary fluke, the Liberal Democrats won the next election?

Mr. Webb: The Conservative party makes policy in an intriguing way.

Miss Kirkbride: I asked about the Liberal Democrats' policy.

Mr. Webb: I will explain our policy to the hon. Lady. However, when a new Conservative shadow Chancellor

took over, he reversed within a few days substantial tranches of party policy. That is not how the Liberal Democrats work. Our policy is determined at our conference by the delegates. We have just completed a policy document, "Policies for an Ageing Population", which contains proposals for substantial increases in the basic state pension across the board and particularly for older pensioners. We have advocated that for a long time, and the Conservatives will now have to vote for that to facilitate their proposal for an extra £2 for the over-75s. They were ambivalent about that move, but now have to support it to implement their policy. We shall vote on our proposals at our September conference and they will become party policy. That policy will be published in the coming few months, so the precise figures, together with a statement of where the money will come from, will be available.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman mentioned extra money for older pensioners. Does he recall that he proposed to fund that by dismantling SERPS?

Mr. Webb: No, that is not how we propose to fund it. If the Secretary of State contains himself for a few weeks, he will be able see our proposals in a policy document which explains where the money comes from, although that will not be from the abolition of SERPS. By contrast, the Government stood on a manifesto that said that SERPS would remain for those who wanted it, but the right hon. Gentle man is abolishing it.
The key point is that if the Conservative party were in office, it would give pensioners the 75p that they deride as paltry. It has sought to make political capital out of that 75p, but pensioners have long memories and know that they would let nothing better from the Conservatives. It is not just their record in this Parliament that we have to worry about—we must also examine the record of 18 years of Conservative Government, which sends a clear signal about why pensioners do not trust the Tories on pensions.
In 1980, the Conservative Government broke the earnings link. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) commented on that link and rewrote history by implying that it had never been properly honoured. However, the history of the pension shows that its real value increased significantly relative to earnings in the 30 years after the war and that successive Governments, despite difficult economic situations, did more than simply retain the earnings link. I therefore reject the suggestion that, in a relatively prosperous nation, the link is totally unaffordable.
The Conservatives broke that link, thereby allowing the basic state pension for each generation that retires to fall further behind what it received when it was in work. If the role of a pension is to help people maintain living standards from work into retirement, letting the basic pension lose touch with what people are earning, whatever the mechanism, means that the state pension fails to fulfil that role.
Conservative proposals on winter fuel payments would make no difference to pensioner incomes over the lifetime of a Parliament. Once the Conservative party had done that, what would it do next? If inflation was at 1.1 per cent., it would give pensioners 75p, so nothing would change for pensioners. I strongly suspect that the hon.
Member for Havant was influential in Conservative policy-making circles when the previous Government devalued the basic pension and slashed SERPS. The real value of SERPS entitlements was more or less halved in legislation in 1986 and halved again in the Pension Act 1995. That is the Conservative record on state pensions, which pensioners remember.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: The key phrase used by the hon. Gentleman was that the state pension was meant to help pensioners maintain their living standards. Does he agree that linking the pension to earnings would diminish the incentive for people to make additional provision, which was always the intention of the old age pension system under Beveridge?

Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman make a fair point. If we had only an earnings-linked pension and a price-linked means test, there is a risk that people would start to rely more on state pensions and less on their savings. However, we are not in that position, as we have an earnings-linked means test designed to ensure that today's poorer pensioners at least keep pace with the working age population. We do not oppose that. We do not oppose keeping those on income support out of touch with those of working age. However, doing that means that one cannot let the basic pension fall, which is the difference between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat positions.
The Secretary of State seemed to imply with a gesture that we had not said that before. Our criticism concerns letting the basic pension cut itself adrift from the means test, which creates the savings disincentive raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does not that scenario give rise to the present problem? The Government's minimum income guarantee for pensioners is a minimum income guarantee only if those pensioners draw income support. It is disgraceful that any pensioner should have to rely on drawing any benefit to get a minimum income. That applies to some of the poorest pensioners in the land.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman has a short memory. For most of the period in which the Conservatives were in government, 1 million pensioners were getting income support, which is the same thing. The hon. Gentleman's party seemed to have no problem with that in office. Indeed, occasionally it made above-inflation increases to income support for pensioners in the same way that the present Government link it to earnings. The policy is the same, and the election did not bring any change to it. What was true when the hon. Gentleman's party were in office is certainly true now.
The critical point is that the Conservative package would be of negligible value to pensioners and they can see through it. Just as across the land the Secretary of State is known as Mr. 75p, the Opposition spokesman will be known as Mr. 42p. There may be a gain of 42p, but there would be a significant number of losers—to whom fleeting reference has been made, such as the men aged 60-64 mentioned by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) who think they will get the winter fuel payments, but in fact will lose them.
The motion for debate states that funding will come from
abolishing the … New Deal for Lone Parents
and elsewhere, which glosses over the £90 million or so that will come from the social fund. I should be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Havant if he wants to explain on what parts of the social fund he would draw. Would he draw on crisis loans for people whose domestic circumstances are in crisis and who need money for a desperate situation, or would he draw on budgeting loans for people on a pathetic income who need a few pounds to buy a cooker or fridge? Perhaps he would draw on funeral or maternity grants. What cuts would he make on the most vulnerable people in society? The motion is smoke and mirrors and does not explain how the Conservatives would find 42 pence for pensioners. That is what they are really about: they are attempting to deceive pensioners.

Shona McIsaac: The hon. Gentleman speaks about deceiving pensioners. If I understood him correctly, he does not support the winter fuel allowance, which the Liberal Democrats would get rid of. The Labour party is the only party to maintain the winter fuel allowance for pensioners and men aged 60 to 65. Those men would therefore lose out under Liberal Democrat policy.

Mr. Webb: There is no question but that we would honour existing entitlements—but the Conservatives would rip them up. However, it makes sense to feed those entitlements into the pension, as we have always argued. In the 60 to 64 group, people already expecting to get that payment, such as those in the income support category, should continue to do so. However, it is not necessarily sensible to keep that going in perpetuity. All existing promises, however, must be honoured.

Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Webb: No.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) mentioned married women and pensions. The Minister of State and I had an exchange in an Adjournment debate on the position of married women who pay the reduced rate of national insurance, many of whom are the poorest pensioners in the land. Indeed, one of them wrote to me recently because she was receiving a pension of 8p a week. I suppose that 42p would be good news for her, but that is not so for most pensioners.
Having examined the history of the matter, I learned that the Leader of the Opposition was a pensions Minister in about 1993, when nearly 1 million married women paid national insurance at the reduced rate and therefore depriving themselves of future pension entitlements. A significant number were wrongly advised to pay national insurance at the reduced rate. Some of them were on such low pay that they could have paid less national insurance if they had gone into the full system. However, the then pensions Minister failed to draw that to their attention. The Leader of the Opposition is therefore partly responsible for today's pensioners being on such poor pensions.
The Minister of State kindly invited me to offer him individual cases. I have written to every pensioner who has written to me, passing on that invitation so that they


can respond through their own MPs. I am gathering information, and hopefully the Minister will also shortly receive information from pensioners throughout the land.
I shall not follow the precedent set by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) yesterday when he spoke for 45 minutes in a Liberal Democrat Opposition day debate. I shall shortly draw my remarks to a close, but first I shall set out the alternative Liberal Democrat vision for the basic state pension. Two or three key principles distinguish our approach from that of the Conservative party and the Government.
First, we believe that the basic state pension has a central role and there should not be additional money for gimmicks and schemes. To that extent, there is common ground. However, we believe that the pension has been allowed to fall much too far behind means-tested benefits. The basic state pension is just over £67 and the means test is worth £78, so there is already a yawning £11 gap, and by the time of the election it will be larger still. Our commitment is to reduce that gap and, to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), our goal is to ensure that no pensioner over 75 has to rely on means-tested benefits such as income support.
Our goal is to raise the basic state pension with particular emphasis on older pensioners, who tend to be women, to be poorer and to have run down their savings. Our approach is universal in that all pensioners will receive the pension and will not have to be means-tested, but it is targeted because the pension will increase substantially with age and will therefore reach those most in need. That is the right balance, and the Government's obsession with means-testing and the Opposition's approach, which recycles existing cash, are not. Our targeted approach will ensure that pensioners most in need—those who are entitled to the means test but who do not claim the benefit—get the money to which they are entitled.
We believe that the pensioners of this country have been insulted once by being given 75p, and they will be insulted again if offered 42p by the official Opposition. Only one party at the next general election will pledge a substantial, real increase in the basic state pension, and pensioners know who their friend is.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Studying the subjects that the Tories have chosen for today's debates leads me to an inescapable conclusion: it took the Labour party 18 years of opposition to become fit to form a Government; on this form it will take the Tories a lot longer than that to become fit to form an Opposition.
For the second debate—obviously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not discuss that subject—the Conservatives have chosen genetically modified crops, a matter that divides the sovereign's consort from the heir to the throne, and the heir to the throne from the Princess Royal. Yet the Conservatives want to make political capital out of it.
For this debate, the Tories have chosen a subject on which their record is so appalling that one would think that they would never presume to open their mouths about it. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for

Havant (Mr. Willetts), in a speech that managed simultaneously to be both conceited and inadequate, told the House that he offered pensioners respect—and respect is all that the Conservatives are offering pensioners. Even if they offer that, we should remember that one of their Prime Ministers used to refer to the retirement pension as a "donation".
Let me make my position clear. I think that the Government were seriously mistaken to put up the pension by only 75p this spring. I have a right to say that because months beforehand, I wrote to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, telling them that it would be a blunder to bring in an increase of that size. Furthermore, although I welcome the free television licences for those aged 75 and over, I have said repeatedly that the policy should extend to all pensioners. So I have a right to tell the Government to do even better, while praising them for all that they have done for pensioners—the £150 winter fuel allowance, the £10 Christmas bonus, the free eye tests, the free TV licences for older pensioners and the cut in VAT on fuel.
The Conservatives do not have the right to utter a peep about pensions. We must remember that they legislated for the link between the basic pension and the prices index, and that is the basis for the 75p increase that the Tory leader has the nerve to denounce. In their 1997 manifesto, the Tories promised to
continue to protect the value of the basic state pension against price rises.
That is Hague-speak for "75p", which is all that the Conservatives would have provided this year.
By ending the link between pensions and pay in 1980, the Tories were responsible for the fact that today's pension is £31.40 a week less for the single pensioner and £50 a week less for a married couple. Ending that link meant that over their years in office the Tories stole £115 billion from pensioners, in return for which they are now offering 42p.
The Tories are now trying to make up for that, or at least pretending to do so, by promising a single £5.50 top-up on the pension. The hon. Member for Havant admitted this afternoon that that would be a once-and-for-all increase, before they went back to increasing pensions solely on the basis of the price index. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out, the shadow Chancellor has admitted that the £5.50 top-up would not involve a penny of new money. It would all be paid for by money already committed, most of it to pensioners. This must be a first: the only self-financing bribe in the history of political peculation.
However, the situation is even worse than that because the £5.50 top-up would be for one year only, but the cuts—the end of the winter fuel payment, the Christmas bonus and the free TV licence for those aged 75 and over—would be for ever. If the Tories ever came to power, they would budget to spend far less money on pensioners than Labour does. They would not spend a penny more on the pensions increase, as they have admitted, but they would end the winter fuel allowance, which would save the Treasury £1,300 million a year. The end of the Christmas bonus would save the Treasury £85 million a year. The end of free TV licences would save £364 million a year. So in exchange for that


self-financing bribe for one year, the Tories would take away £1,750 million, and rising, from pensioners every year.

Mr. Greenway: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman in a moment; I have him well in mind.
On the one hand, there is 42p, with no new money, and on the other, £1,750 million will be taken from pensioners every year. No doubt if the Tories ever got the chance, they would give that money away to the top taxpayers who benefited during their years in office.
A funny thing about the free TV licence is that the Tory leader announced his intention to abolish it on 24 May, but only the day before, when the House passed the legislation facilitating the free TV licence, the Tory Front-Bench spokesmen were confirming their "warm, enthusiastic, welcoming support" for the measure. On 23 May, they said that free TV licences were wonderful; on 24 May, they said that they had to be abolished. That is not so much a U-turn as a hairpin bend. For reasons that I have always failed to understand, the hon. Member for Havant has been referred to as "Two Brains"—two faces would be a better description. Madam Speaker has ruled it out of order to describe the Conservatives as hypocrites. That is just as well, for hypocrite is too kindly an epithet to apply to that party.
The Liberal Democrats, from whom we have just heard, should rename themselves the lachrymose crocodiles. During last month's local elections, that grubby leaflet "Focus" sought to stir up discontent it my constituency about what the Liberal Democrats called the "75p pensions insult", but what is their policy on pensions?
The Liberal Democrat amendment states:
the Conservatives have admitted that, had they been in office in April 2000, they would have increased the basic state pension by just 75p …
True, but so would the Liberal Democrats. That was official Liberal Democrat policy, and it will remain so until the phantasmagorical document that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) endorses and promises will be published.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) was unable to find the Liberal Democrats' policy on the website, but my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) quoted it from memory. I do not need to quote their policy from memory; I looked it up in their 1997 manifesto, which states:
The basic state pension will remain indexed to prices.
That is Lib Dem-speak for 75p. The hon. Gentleman has admitted that that continues to be their policy until that wonderful document, for which we cannot wait, comes out later this year. No doubt—the Liberal Democrats being what they are—it will tell us not only what they would pay pensioners, but how they would pay for it in increased taxation, national insurance contributions, or both. A significant absence from all Liberal Democrat spending commitments is how they intend to find the money to pay for them. I shall return to that matter not in this speech, but in future speeches in the House, if I catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair.
Pensioners would have been worse off this year under Liberal Democrat policy, because the party had no policies to introduce winter fuel payments or free TV

licences in its election manifesto. The Liberal Democrats battened on to those, but they are our policies, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes said—ours alone. Not only would pensioners have been worse off this year under Liberal Democrat policy because of their 75p increase without a winter fuel payment or free TV licence, but the hon. Member for Northavon has admitted that they would have been even worse off. Using strange phraseology, he has said that the Liberal Democrats would honour the current commitments. I do not know what that means, especially as their intention would be to incorporate them into the pension. That would mean that the money would be taxable, as distinct from not being taxed as now. The hon. Gentleman has not committed his party to continuing the winter fuel payment as such. He sits there giving a twitch of his head, which I cannot interpret, but he is certainly not springing to his feet to deny what I say.
We have no guarantee whatever that the Liberal Democrats will continue with the free TV licence, even for over-75s. Furthermore, they claimed in one of their other "Focus" leaflets, which was circulated in my constituency, that the Labour Government would force pensioners to collect their pensions through bank accounts, although they knew—if they did not know, they should have done—that the Prime Minister personally promised that pensioners would continue to be able to collect their pensions from their local sub-post offices weekly and in cash. The "Focus" leaflets have turned lying and deception into such an art form that any minute now, the Liberal Democrats will apply for a lottery grant for them.
In a recent asylum debate, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) gave
an undertaking, on behalf of my party, that we will seek to deal with any matter in our party that other people are concerned about.—[Official Report, 12 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 447.]
More than a month ago, I tabled early-day motions drawing attention to Liberal lies and deception, and we are still waiting to hear from the hon. Gentleman. The Labour party can and should do better for pensioners, and Labour Back Benchers will keep up their pressure for that better deal, but we will take no lessons on pensions, or anything else, from the opposition parties, which compete with each other in empty promises and political prestidigitation.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am especially pleased to follow my colleague, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on which I serve. I have considerable respect for him, but on this occasion, he has used his formidable intellect to distort Conservative party policy on pensions. He suggested that we proposed to condense the winter fuel payment, the Christmas bonus and other payments made to pensioners into one weekly payment. He knows full well that that will not last for one year; it will be continuous. The increase in money that we will give pensioners will be sustained. That is more than the Government propose now because of the administrative savings and money from other Government programmes, which will be added to the overall amount that will be given to pensions.
Given the right hon. Gentleman's considerable intellect, I am surprised that he did not mention—perhaps because of partisan politics—that as well as pensioners receiving


a higher weekly payment, on which future upratings will take place, the money will also be index linked in a way that I presume the £10 Christmas bonus and other payments have not been for some years. He distorts our party policy on such matters—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) must not interrupt the hon. Lady while she is speaking.

Miss Kirkbride: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for calling me after the right hon. Member for Gorton, so that I can swiftly put those matters right for the record.
I do not wish to speak for too long because this is, sadly, a short debate on an important policy matter which affects a huge proportion of our citizens, who clearly feel strongly given the amount of publicity and news attention surrounding pensions during the past few weeks. However, I am proud to stand on the record of what the Conservative party did for pensioners in our 18 years in office and what we propose to do. Sadly, our proposals are subject to distortion by Labour Members. They distort what happened to pensioners and their incomes during those 18 years.
A third of pensioners now have incomes that are in the top half of all incomes in the country. That is a considerable achievement, for which we deserve some of the credit in so far as we encouraged occupational and private pension schemes. I wish that more than a third of pensioners were in that position, but back in the 1970s and before, pensioners were almost universally poor. That is not so nowadays and they mirror the rest of the population: some are well off, some are fairly well off and, sadly, some, like other people, are poor.
It is Conservative Members' duty to point out that all pensioners, given their service to this country and their status as senior citizens, should be allowed to live in dignity and decency, and should have enough money to do so. I accept that all Members want to achieve that objective, although it will be expensive in so far as others will have to pay.

Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Kirkbride: I will, but I hope that the hon. Lady does not make more partisan points.

Kali Mountford: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way on the point of pensioner poverty. Given that her party—and, it seems, the Liberals—does not support the £150 winter fuel allowance, I am intrigued to know how she would tackle the problems of those who have suffered from hypothermia in winter. That payment has made a significant difference to pensioners' use of heating over the winter months and could save lives.

Miss Kirkbride: I am sorry to have to say that the hon. Lady's question is extremely ignorant and completely misses the point: we propose to give pensioners that money weekly rather than annually. They will still receive it, so her point is ridiculous as it lacks any intellectual credibility whatever. I am sorry that I gave way.
I was developing the point that we improved pensioner incomes and increased income support for poorer pensioners during our 18 years in power. The Government have introduced measures on similar lines, but given them different names. For example, they call family credit the working families tax credit. On the whole, the policies are similar and, in a civilised society, it is right and proper to help poorer pensioners. I take great comfort from the fact that many people drawn from the spectrum of 10.5 million pensioners—getting on for 20 per cent. of our citizens—can live out their lives in some financial security. That is good news on which we want to improve. To that end, the Government have a case to answer.
We all accept that pensioners' incomes are vulnerable because they can no longer work. They are not in the marketplace and feel insecure because they are unable earn more—their incomes are static. People fortunately live longer, but inflation may erode the money that they receive, which is a worry. Therefore, it was extremely mean of the Labour Government to create a position in which pensioners can no longer get back the tax on their dividends. That smacks of the class envy that we have seen in the past few weeks.
Pensioners who happen to have a few shares in British Gas, BT or any other stock portfolio are not necessarily rich. The tax that they get back is a significant part of their income and they are entitled to it, especially given the vulnerability of their income position. It was mean and spiteful of the Government to stop pensioners claiming back their tax, and that measure contrasts markedly with the new proposals for the tax regime: whereas the tax man would have taken £40 million from a dot.com multi-millionaire who made a profit of £100 million, fat cats, as the Government used to call them, will now be able to keep £90 million and hand the Treasury just £10 million. That sits uneasily with depriving pensioners—who by no conceivable definition are the rich in society—of a legitimate part of their income.
The same goes for the Government's sins of omission as for their sins of commission against the pensioners—they have done m thing about annuities. Many pensioners who, in good faith, set up a financial portfolio under which they would be obliged to buy an annuity at 75 face a serious situation that has perhaps been made much worse because the Government will not be involved in the gilt market as much as they once were. That is welcome in many ways, but pensioners will be adversely affected and face relative penury because the Government simply will not act. They should do something for those pensioners, a number of whom from my constituency regularly write to me, pleading for the Government to act. As one does as a Member of Parliament, I send those letters to the Treasury, only to get the usual blanket, stonewall answers. The Government have committed a gross sin of omission. If they want to claim that they are the pensioners' friend, they must consider that issue urgently.
I support what my party proposes to do with the state pension after the next election and I am pleased that it looks increasingly likely that we might win.

Mr. Swayne: We will win.

Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend encourages me to tempt fate, but one must never do that in politics.
However, the political landscape has changed dramatically over the past few weeks. I enjoy speaking to the Women's Institute in my constituency and must report to the House, as a matter of record, that I have never been slow handclapped by the Bromsgrove WI. I congratulate the WI on its view of the Prime Minister.
One reason for the change in the political landscape is that pensioners prefer the dignity of the pension being paid under the contributory principle, which we shall offer them at the next election, and like the idea of people being entitled to that money because they earned it during their working lives. Our proposals are not a gimmick and they do not represent a handout. That money could not be taken away at the whim of a Chancellor who thought that it was no longer a good idea to continue with any extra payment such as those introduced by this Government.
The Government's public relations used to be so sure-footed, so I cannot understand why the Chancellor has been foolish enough to give more money to pensioners—we accept that he has done so—in a grossly offensive way. That has backfired in terms of the pensioners' view of the Government: 75p was given on a contributory basis, but other money was given in the form of gimmicks and handouts. The sooner they learn their lesson, the better. Labour Members have been so excitable today because, in their heart of hearts, they know that too.
I commend our pension plans to the House. They are right for pensioners, some of whom would benefit by much more than the 42p claimed by the Government and the Liberal Democrats. Not all pensioners get free television licences; some do not even have to buy one. Those people would be helped by our policies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said, pensioners on income support who live in nursing homes do not benefit from the winter fuel payment, but they would get our extra money for the basic state pension. Several groups would benefit from the straightforward principle of giving pensioners what they deserve—an enhanced weekly pension.

Ms Claire Ward: I welcome this Opposition day debate because it highlights further the hypocritical opportunism of the Tories, which is at the core of their party. In choosing the subject for today's debate, Conservative Members seem to have forgotten their record when in office. It shows that they have no interest in pensioners. The previous Government abolished free eye tests for pensioners; they also abolished the link with earnings. That made pensioners poorer and resulted in the Government's introduction of the 75p increase for pensioners in April this year.

Mr. Swayne: Does the hon. Lady favour the restoration of the earnings link? If so, has she made representations to the Government Front Bench?

Ms Ward: I shall comment on the way in which the Government could do much better later. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall reach his point, if he will have a little patience.
I am currently considering the previous Government's record. They allowed winter fuel payments to be made only if stringent conditions, about which we heard earlier, were satisfied. They made pensioners poorer so that

between 1979 and 1997, the gap between the richest and the poorest pensioners increased. The incomes of the richest pensioners rose by 80 per cent., while those of the poorest increased by only 30 per cent.
Through their plans to abolish parts of the social fund, the Tories have demonstrated again that they are not interested in pensioners or anybody who is on low pay and in need of help. When Conservative Front-Bench Members make their winding-up speeches, I hope that they will identify the exact benefits, which are currently available through the social fund, that they would abolish, and the sections of the community that would not have access to that important fund.
Despite such a track record, Conservative Members have the cheek to try to con pensioners by proposing a handout, for which money that they already receive in a different form, would pay. Pensioners will not be deceived by that. It is an insult to a generation that deserves much better from all politicians to be used by the Tories for a cheap headline. Pensioners would not benefit from Tory policy.
As for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) is no longer in his place. That shows that not only their policies have disappeared. If the hon. Gentleman returns while I am speaking, I shall consider the points that he made in his speech.
The Government's actions for pensioners to date should be applauded. The minimum income guarantee ensures that the income of the poorest pensioners is increased so that they are able to live in some dignity. The winter fuel allowance acknowledges that, in winter, pensioners worry about the cost of heating. The allowance of £150 will be paid to all pensioner households from December this year. It ensures that pensioners will not have to choose between heating and other necessities. Restoration of free eye tests for pensioners and the introduction of free television licences for those aged over 75 are important. The Government should be commended for that.
The hon. Member for Northavon has now returned. That gives me the opportunity to comment on his speech. It is no wonder that his colleagues have deserted him. If I were a Liberal Democrat Back Bencher, and had witnessed the hon. Gentleman's inadequate performance, I would also desert him. No Government Front-Bench Member has achieved such a low standard. The hon. Gentleman said that, in 1997, he and his colleagues were elected on a manifesto commitment that no longer exists. I listened carefully to his speech, but he did not outline the new policy. When I return to my constituency and talk to pensioners, I now understand that Liberal Democrats had a policy that they no longer support, but have no policy to replace it. There is a policy vacuum. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made matters as clear as mud.

Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady has not followed our pension debates closely. Otherwise, she would know about our policy for age additions to the basic state pension, increases across the board for all pensioners and our alternative budget, a costed document, which is produced every year. That is the latest statement of our policy, and it provides precise figures, including those for the increases and the age additions. If the hon. Lady is in any doubt, I am happy to send her a copy.

Ms Ward: That will be a riveting read. The hon. Member for Northavon made it clear in his speech that


the Liberal Democrats' policy had not been determined and that that would happen during a future policy conference. I therefore conclude that if he no longer supports the policy on which he stood for election in 1997, and will not have a confirmed replacement policy until the end of the year, he, like all Liberal Democrats, is in policy limbo.

Mr. Bill Rammell: My hon. Friend is right to describe the Liberal Democrat position as a policy vacuum. Does she know that the costed alternative budget contains no costed commitment to the restoration of the link between pensions and earnings? Does she therefore agree that it is dishonest of the Liberal Democrats to claim around the country that they are in favour of restoring the link when they have not costed their commitment to do that?

Ms Ward: It is obvious that my hon. Friend has also faced the difficulties of local Liberal Democrats making claims that are not supported by their national policies or spokespersons.

Mr. Swayne: I, too, have a difficulty.

Ms Ward: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a little more progress, which will give him even more reason to intervene.
The Government have done a lot for pensioners, but we can do much better. We must do more in the rest of the Parliament. Some people may justify the increase of 75p by comparing it with the retail prices index as it stood. However, while the price of a basket of goods may not have risen significantly, pensioners have faced other increases, even in the past few months, which have not been taken into account. In my area, the council tax and council rents have increased. That may cancel out the benefit of the new money for a section of our pensioner community in the middle-income group, and those who do not rely solely on a state pension, but have a small occupational pension, which takes them over the threshold for entitlement to additional support. Those pensioners could not be described as well off, but they are no longer in the third of the pensioner group that is entitled to additional funding to allow them to live in some dignity.
Unlike the Tories, our aim should be to retain the benefits that we currently pay to pensioners, and to increase the state pension as well. The debate has revealed the focus of the Tories' argument on pensions—not that pensioners should have more money, but that the money that they are already being given by the Government should be given to them in a different fund, from a different source. I approach the matter from a different point of view. I believe that pensioners should continue to receive the benefits that they are gaining from the Labour Government, and that they should have an increase in the basic state pension.

Mr. Swayne: rose—

Ms Ward: I give way to the hon. Gentleman. He is so persistent.

Mr. Swayne: I thank the hon. Lady. She is young, intelligent and articulate. There are many other

compliments that I would pay to her, but I ask her to fancy herself as an aged lady, beyond the age of, say, 75, and to ask herself whether she would rather receive a free television licence or the value in cash. Surely it is better to have the cash: if she wanted a television licence, she could purchase one, or she could spend the money on something else that was preferable.

Ms Ward: I am ever grateful for any comments received, even from the hon. Gentleman, although I am not quite that desperate yet. He asks me to picture myself another 50 or 60 years from now. Should he still be on this earth at that time, I would be surprised. He asks me to choose between being given just over £100 or getting a free television licence.
If I pay £101 or £103 for a television licence, I want to receive the equivalent sum. If the licence is given to me free, that is a benefit to me, because it is just over £100 that I do not need to spend from my savings or the income that I receive in a state pension.
Yet again, the Tories have missed the focus of the pensions issue. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that we need to do a lot more to help pensioners. There is no doubt in my mind that next year, pensions should be uprated significantly—not just by the £2 or £3 that we have heard is likely to come in the increases next April, but by much more than that. The £2 or £3 is linked to prices, so pensioners are already facing those costs.
I want more pensioners to gain more money from the Government. I want the Government to ensure that pensioners get the benefits to which they are entitled. Many hon. Members come across pensioners who do not realise that they are entitled to various benefits and the minimum income guarantee. We need to do much more to take that campaign out to pensioners and to ensure that they get their entitlement.
I welcome the increase in the limit on savings and capital that was introduced in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor earlier in the year. That limit should be linked, so that we are not reliant on the Government to decide that the limit is out of date. The Tories left the limit at a very low level over a long period.
Pensioners' savings may be money for their funeral or money for a rainy day. It is their security in life. These days, £3,000, £4.000 or £5,000 is not a lot of money for pensioners to have, considering that that may be their only savings and their only support for difficult times.
We should extend some of the other benefits at present under consideration. As my right hon. Friend is aware, in the Transport Bill that has been before the House we are introducing a national concessionary fare scheme. Unfortunately, the terms of the scheme mean that pensioners will gain the minimum of half-fare travel on buses, and only within their own local authority area. Should my granny decide to travel from Scotland to visit me in Watford, she will get a half-fare concession in her own area in Scotland, but she will not be entitled to a half-fare when she comes to Watford.
There should be a truly national concessionary fare scheme, allowing pensioners who travel throughout the country to pay a minimum half-fare, wherever they are. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use his powers of persuasion with our colleagues in other Departments.
We should not take part in the debate with the Tories about existing benefits, arguing over money that pensioners are already getting. Our target should be to do even more for our pensioners. I make no apology for wanting us to do more. We have done a great deal for pensioners in three years—much more than the Tories did in their 18 years in office—but that does not mean that we cannot do more for pensioners in the remaining time of this Parliament.
Pensioners do not have time to wait. Those who have given their lives to this country cannot wait for us to consider what further benefits we feel they are entitled to. This week, we saw the character and the courage of the generation marking the anniversary of Dunkirk.
I know that pensioners in my constituency will not be taken in by the Tories' con, and neither should we be. We should move away from the debate about whether money should be paid through the winter fuel allowance or through pensions. Pensioners should be entitled to both the winter fuel allowance and an uprating in their pension. I urge my right hon. Friend to stand firm on the benefits that have been paid by the Labour Government and opposed by the Opposition. We are still not sure of the Liberal Democrats' views about some of our benefits.
My right hon. Friend should have a strong word with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor about more money for pensioners, to emphasise further the difference between the Government, who really care for pensioners, and the Tories, who are interested only in conning them.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), even if I could not follow entirely her logic.
There are casualties of the policy announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) from these Benches, but those are proper casualties. The first casualty is the new deal for lone parents. My own lack of enthusiasm for it is largely a consequence of the fact that it does not work. The pilot schemes for the new deal for lone parents showed that marginally more lone parents acquired employment where there was no scheme in operation than where there was a scheme. It is therefore entirely appropriate that we should do away with the scheme and put the money into pensions, where it is more deserved.
With respect to the social fund, I have never been a fan of it. There are elements of the social fund that are attractive and desirable, but one element has always struck me as undeserving. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has come to share that view, and also to believe that where consumer durables or items of furniture are required, there should be a greater expectation of the family and other social networks to stump up, instead of an application being made to the social fund, with the expectation that benefits will provide for those needs.
I know about this, because my wife is heavily involved with a charity that aims to provide precisely those items. It caters particularly for the needs of expectant parents. I have always thought it odd that parents, and expectant parents, should exhibit such resistance to second-hand equipment, especially at the lower end of the income scale. The relatively well off are generally happy to receive such equipment; the poorer people are, the greater

their resistance seems to be. I think that that should be deprecated, and I am therefore not particularly exercised by the possible impact of our proposals on the social fund.
As time is limited, I shall deal with only one issue. I believe—and my belief is confirmed by my interpretation of the deliberations of the Social Security Committee—that we were right to break the link with earnings. If the state pension scheme were funded the desire to restore that link would be unanswerable, but I feel that the state pension should continue to provide a minimum standard of living, so that people are encouraged to make other provision.
The Government have put a great deal of thought into developing policy on that. They have launched many initiatives to encourage people to make arrangements for second pensions. I welcome those initiatives. Although many may have been misdirected, I think that the intention was proper and clear. I feel, however, that that intention has been undermined by the determination to uprate the minimum pension guarantee in line with earnings, which is an obvious disincentive. The main thrust of the policy was to encourage people to make their own arrangements to acquire second pensions, particularly lower down the income scale.
There was one point on which I tended to agree with the hon. Member for Watford. It is clear to those of us who do not resile from the breaking of the link with earnings that the decision to continue uprating in line with prices must be tempered with a better understanding of what constitutes the retail prices index for pensioners. It is obvious to me that the current arrangement for uprating pensions does not affect pensioners' real cost of living.

Kali Mountford: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view that we should think again about whether there should be a pensioners' price index. Does that form any part of his party's policy?

Mr. Swayne: As I enjoy the freedom of the Back Benches, I think it proper for me to draw attention to what I consider to be problems, in the hope that my party's Front Bench will consider and address them. That, I think, is the proper role of Back Benchers.
This is one problem that I would like to draw to the attention of those on the Front Bench. I do not believe that our current arrangements take adequate account of the real costs of living for pensioners. If we continue to uprate pensions in line with prices—especially in the case of pensioners at the lower end of the income scale—we must take into account the real increases in their living costs. Otherwise, we shall face outrage every year.

Kali Mountford: We have been confronted with a conglomeration of views and an examination of pension history that are beyond belief. There has been a complete misunderstanding of the way in which social security budgets are stacked up, how important they are, and why they should be as they are.
I am particularly concerned about two issues. One is the "robbing Petra to pay Paul" syndrome—a policy requiring babies to have second-hand prams and cots to pay for a pension scheme. I would not wish to subscribe to such a policy. I thought that the state pension should have a firm foundation, but the foundation for the proposals that we


have heard today does not seem at all secure. They are based on taking away parts of the social security budget, and replacing them from elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) did not give a clear answer to our questions about the national insurance fund. If we are to change the basis of national insurance, let us be honest about it and have a proper debate about whether the national insurance fund should fund state pensions. The hon. Gentleman did not say that this was the new position, but if we examine the figures closely it is clear that state pensions would have to be financed by general taxation.
The figures simply do not add up. We are considering a package of measures aimed at those who need help most. It cannot make sense to say that the package does not, in the main, come from the national insurance fund—because it is paying for state pensions—and that we could somehow roll it up together and thus make a big increase in state pensions.
We are not even being honest and recognising that fact. Those who have drawn attention to it have been told that there are surpluses in the national insurance fund. Every time I have looked at the fund, I have concluded that the alleged surpluses are there for a good reason. They are there because that is how the social security budget must be accounted for. It must cover a range of matters—matters that the House has debated repeatedly. People simply will not accept that a short-term surplus cannot, in perpetuity, finance increases in the state pension, unless we review national insurance contributions.
The Opposition have not even said what they would do with the national insurance fund. They think that they can just tinker with the figures, but such tinkering will fool no one. It certainly will not fool those who will find £150 on their doormats in November, when they need it most. It is diabolical to suggest that it is patronising to give the poorest people the help that they need when they need it most, and it is also misleading. The aim seems to be to drag people into a debate based on fear.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: Is the suggestion not also financially illiterate? If the poorest pensioners receiving the winter allowance had received the money in the basic pension, they would have lost it pound for pound through income support.

Kali Mountford: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition claim that that is incorrect, but we have heard no firm statement because the figures do not add up.
Time is short, but I want to point out how vital it is to continue the winter fuel payment. Both opposition parties are opposed to that. Clearly they have not noted the views of Age Concern and Help the Aged, which have consistently said that hypothermia is claiming lives year on year. They say that it is a question of respect, and not patronising people. How patronising is it not even to provide extra measures that would help those people?
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) to say that some people could retain the benefit, but they may not be those who need it most. The people who need it most are those in receipt of the minimum income guarantee. The Opposition have decried the minimum income guarantee as something that has not

been special, although increases in it, year on year, have been far above any increases paid to pensioners in the past. Although some pensioners have not experienced the benefit, it has gone to those who have needed it most.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It has been a telling debate. For our side, it has been telling to watch the massed ranks of the Government because the problem is that the opposition is on the Benches behind Ministers. To be able to say that their supporters were po-faced while the Secretary of State was, not terribly effectively, defending his own policy was a joy and pleasure to us all. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. I hope that outbreaks of sedentary comment will cease. It does not help the debate.

Mrs. Lait: I am always happy to get supportive comments.
We watched the Government's supporters not being able to support their own Front-Bench team and the Secretary of State. In fact, every contribution that we have had, other than the fairly technical one from the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford)—we do not have time to debate the technicalities, much as I would like to—and a part of the speech by the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward), basically said, "You have got it wrong. You have to do better." We have done precisely that. That is what the problem is. The Government's supporters and, indeed, the Government are thoroughly rattled by the very sensible proposals that we have made.
It is interesting. The first speech that I made at the Dispatch Box was—to give them credit—during a debate that was initiated by the Liberal Democrats, who tabled a motion suggesting that the 75p increase was not enough. I remember saying at that time that it was a measly increase, but it is interesting to note that their amendment today goes no further than their motion at the beginning of the year. They say, "We will pay pensioners more." Now we have the promise that they will tell us in a few weeks where the money is coming from. We all hold our breath, but we all know that the Liberal Democrats say one thing and do another, should they ever be given the opportunity, which I doubt.
We, however, have been listening very hard to pensioners. We slave listened to the organisations that represent them. We have listened to our constituents comments in letters and at our surgeries. My goodness, I have a heap of letters, as I am sure every Member does—

Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Lait: I am terribly sorry; we are desperately short of time. If the hon. Gentleman had been here for most of the debate, I might it have been more tempted.
What we have heard from pensioners is consistent and clear. They are saying, "We do not like being patronised. We do not like being told how to spend our money. We think that the plethora of allowances and benefits is confusing. We do not like the nanny state." We listened and we acted.
It was my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) who, in an excellent exposition, outlined exactly what we have proposed. Despite the shortness of time, I will run through it quickly. It is important that we get it on the record because so many wild accusations are floating around, including the one from the Secretary of State, who, I am delighted to see, is back in the Chamber and who persists in saying that our increase is £5. It is £5.50. I would be grateful if he tried to get that fixed in his brain.
We took the Government at their word that the state pension would next rise by between £2 and £3 a year. We then took the money that they are spending on winter heating and on free television licences. We added the age addition for the over-80s and the Christmas bonus. We looked at the savings that we could achieve from abolishing those gimmicks. We added the money to be saved from winter fuel payments to men aged between 60 and 64, which the Government did not plan originally to give them. We took some of the extra money that the Government have put into the social fund and we used the money from the failed new deal for lone parents.
We were then able to promise—

Mr. Darling: It will add 42p.

Mrs. Lait: I am afraid that the Secretary of State is too devoted to "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy". That is not the answer to everything.
We were then able to promise all pensioners the increases that—

Mr. Darling: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Lait: I would dearly love to give way to the Secretary of State. It would be a huge—

Mr. Darling: rose—

Mrs. Lait: I give way.

Mr. Darling: Clearly, the Conservative party has been on a hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy. It has come up with exactly the same answer, which is 42p.

Mrs. Lait: What we have come up with is the answer that pensioners want. Pensioners want to get rid of the gimmicks that the Government have been buying them off with. They want the dignity and self-respect to pay their own way on their own budget on a weekly basis. They know that if they receive the money weekly, any future increases will be based on that increased state pension. Many Members are trying to portray it as a one-off increase. It is not. It will increase and roll on year by year. The base rate has gone up.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Lait: I will give way briefly because I am aware that my hon. Friend wanted to speak.

Mr. Greenway: In the catalogue of things that we propose to save money on to pay for the package,

does my hon. Friend include the more than £20 million a year that it will cost to run the bureaucracy to give the free television licence?

Mrs. Lait: That is, indeed, part of the savings increase. My hon. Friend tried hard to get into the debate, but was not able to.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Lait: I am sorry. I will not give way again as I have only four more minutes.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) approached you to have Hansard corrected in view of the fact that Hansard reports him as warmly and enthusiastically supporting the free television licence that he now nods at as a gimmick?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member and knows that he is trying to pursue a point of debate under the guise of a point of order.

Mrs. Lait: We were able to make those promises two weeks ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), our leader, made the promise at that time. I shall read the relevant paragraph from his speech because, clearly, many people have not read it. He said:
We would also adjust tax allowances for older people to compensate pensioners for any extra that they might otherwise pay.
It is practically in words of one syllable. He went on:
we would adjust means tested benefits to ensure that the poorest pensioners gain at least as much as other pensioners.
That is in the costings. It was said by my right hon. Friend. It was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts); indeed, it was said by any Conservative who was briefing on that day. It is why the Secretary of State and other Ministers in the Department of Social Security are petrified by what we have suggested. Indeed, the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), the Secretary of State's PPS, is giving a very good imitation of someone who is having a nervous attack at the success of what we have proposed.
Many pensioners are telling us that our proposal gives them dignity and choice. We have been able to give them what they require to feel that they are decent, honourable and upstanding members of society, unlike the Government, who continue to patronise, to confuse and to dish out sums of money to meet their political ends, not the requirements of pensioners who are our first priority.

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Is that it? Opposition Members have finished speaking, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you have called me to speak, but I have not really heard anything yet. However, looking at the Order Paper I was struck by the fact—I am a bit superstitious; I do not walk under ladders or do anything like that—that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, the Opposition have chosen, on their 13th allotted day, to debate pensions. They have told us nothing new about pensions, other than that they will


spend exactly the same money on pensions as is now being spent on them. No one will ever remember the Opposition's motion, but everyone will remember the substance of it: this is the 42p pension debate. That is what Opposition Members have talked about today. That is what it amounts to.
We have not heard anything of substance that is new from Opposition Members, and they know it. They also know that their proposal is a con. That is why they were so angry with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for finding them out so quickly. As the hours passed, they changed their position and squirmed about their so-called policy initiative.
There have been some interesting speeches from both sides of the House, and some of them were thoughtful. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) covered a range of subjects, some of which were partisan. However, I think that there is a meeting of minds that, in the years since the war, the House has not exactly shone with glory in addressing the issue of pensioners' incomes. As I said, there have been various attempts—by Richard Crossman, Boyd-Carpenter, Barbara Castle and even Keith Joseph—simply to get to grips with the fact that the basic state pension was never intended to be the sole source of income.
Since 1948, that has been the basic tenet in the pensions debate, and the Labour and Conservative parties have both made attempts to deal with that fact. Regrettably, so far, of all those attempts not one has come to fruition in the House. Legislation was passed on one proposal, but it was never implemented. Other proposals have been modified over the years. However, the basic underlying fact is that we have to do something to get pensioners a second income, and preferably not one that relies on the vagaries of Governments, Chancellors and the national insurance fund. If people can have access to a separate, funded scheme, they will be better provided for. The consequence of that fact has been growth in occupational pension schemes and the creation of the stakeholder pension system, which will be funded.
Nevertheless, we must always—I make no apology for this—bear in mind the total income that pensioners receive, and we should not centre the entire debate on the basic state pension. For one thing, many people do not receive the basic state pension because they have not paid enough into the national insurance fund. There have been quirks in the national insurance system since it began, and they are grossly unfair to many pensioners. If people do not, for example, accrue 25 per cent. of a pension, they receive nothing—[Interruption.] Hang on; I am making a speech on behalf of the Government. I am not going to be told by Opposition Front Benchers what to say.
The underlying thrust of the Opposition's motion is that the basic state pension is the be-all and end-all of pension provision, and that we must never talk about other aspects of the matter. Opposition Members think that, by manipulating a debate on their own terms—just on the basic state pension, as if that is what people live on—they will appeal to pensioners.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security said, in 1997–98 the average pensioner income was £132, which is twice today's basic state

pension amount. That sum includes SERFS, occupational pensions and personal pensions. It is also an average, and many people receive a much higher sum.
We make no apology whatsoever for targeting our extra resources on the poorest pensioners. We came into office and discovered that when the previous Labour Government left office, 40 per cent. of pensioners retired on to means-tested benefit. Today, the percentage is much lower—28 per cent. The fact is that those who do retire on to it, relative to those who do not, are much poorer than they were in 1978. In 20 years, the income differential between the top fifth and the bottom fifth of pensioners has changed from 2.5:1, to 3.5:1. We cannot close that gap without getting more money, and faster, to the poorest pensioners in relation to the general population. That is the reality, and increasing money across the board simply will not work.

Mr. Willetts: What about the winter fuel payment?

Mr. Rooker: I am coming to that. We make no apology at all for our other manifesto commitment—it was in the rest of the sentence—On pensioners sharing in the nation's prosperity. No one has ever said that the winter fuel payment and the free television licence for the over-75s—as the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said, the older the pensioner, the poorer he or she is—is means tested. It is right that those should go to the over-75s. The provision also he1ps to ensure that those pensioners share in the nation's greater prosperity.
As I said, we need to get more money, faster, to poorer pensioners. The Opposition, however, have come along and said that some of our schemes are gimmicks. One of the most upsetting aspects of this debate is that we have still not been told—we have asked the question more than once; I am sorry that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) did not answer it—exactly which part of the social fund they will abolish. Who will be affected by the abolition? We are talking about real people, not statistics.
I accept that, in the grand order of the sums Governments deal with, £90 million is chickenfeed. However, Conservative Members need that £90 million just to make their sums add up. They need it to get the 42p—just to get ahead of the game. However, they owe it to themselves to know exactly which group they will target in the social fund. They need to know that so they can sleep at night with a clear conscience. They should know which group of the poorest people in the country they will attack It is a great pity they have not said anything about that today.
Conservative Members were also very coy in the way in which they presented their policy. They mentioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on Budget day. We have not argued about that statement. We realise that the announcement on pension increases did not make headlines, but it was in Hansard. The Chancellor said that, on current forecasts, the increases would be at least £2 and £3. We are not committed to those increases—but they are minimum figures. Conservative Members were very coy in dealing with that. They did not want to quote the Chancellor. They could have quoted Hansard, with a column reference, to back up their figures, but that would have destroyed their argument in a flash. It would have shown that the money they are promising has already been promised by a Labour Chancellor, in the House, not in an outside press conference.
Pensioners have welcomed the winter fuel allowance and the free television licence as cash sums. A few hon. Members have quoted letters from people criticising the Government. Ministers and hon. Members receive such letters every day, and we try personally to read and respond to as many of them as we can. It should be said, however, that members of the public agree with what we are doing. It is only right that we should hear from some pensioners who have written to the Government to say, "We think that it is a good idea to have winter fuel payments and free television licences."
I have a letter from Mr. Harry Berry, and I have his permission to quote the letter and mention his name. He is not a constituent of mine, or even from a Labour constituency—he lives in Bury St. Edmunds. He is a former worker in the Post Office and has offered some positive suggestions. At the end of his letter, he said:
Despite the unwarranted complaint by many of my contemporaries may I say thank you to a government who by offering me a free TV Licence and £150 Christmas Bonus—
for winter fuel—
has given me what amounts to a £5 pound a week increase in my pension.
That is what 77-year-old Harry Berry acts ally said. People are saying, "Thanks very much—it is a good way to do it."
I also want to share with the House a letter that we received earlier this week. The letter typifies the need for the winter fuel payment better than I am able to do. If ever the Government had tried to encapsulate in an advertisement, television slot or photograph the message in this letter, we would have been told, "That is not true in Britain in the 21st century." I should add that I shall not be much longer in speaking, because I do not want to steal too much of the Opposition's time.
The letter is from a couple. As I do not have their permission to say their name, I shall not do so. However, they live in a village near Marlborough, in Wiltshire. As 6,000 people live in the village, they cannot be identified from their letter. It reads:
Please may I thank yourself and your party for the fuel allowance that we as pensioners were awarded last winter? My husband and I have only the state pension, topped up by income support. For many years, before we became pensioners, we bought a wooding permit from our local forestry commission in order to keep our home warm as coal was so expensive. This became harder—gathering wood in rain, cold, ice and snow—as we reached pensionable age. The fuel allowance was a life saver, and we straightaway ordered £100-worth of coal, enjoying every second of the warmth it gave. I am sure we can't be the only ones to appreciate your allowance. Thank you once again. I dread to think about future winters if we had had to struggle home with the wet wood.
I rest the Government's case.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 301.

Division No. 222]
[4.1 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bercow, John


Amess, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Body, Sir Richard


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Boswell, Tim


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Baldry, Tony
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Beggs, Roy
Brady, Graham





Brazier, Julian
Loughton, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Luff, Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bums, Simon
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cash, William
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Madel, Sir David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Maginnis, Ken


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Major, Rt Hon John



Malins, Humfrey


Collins, Tim
Maples, John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Mates, Michael


Cran, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
May, Mrs Theresa


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Moss, Malcolm


Day, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Norman, Archie


Duncan, Alan
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Duncan Smith, lain
Ottaway, Richard


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Paice, James


Faber, David
Paterson, Owen


Fabricant, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Flight, Howard
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Prior, David


Fraser, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gale Roger
Robathan, Andrew


Gamier, Edward
Robertson, Laurence


Gibb Nick
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gill, Christopher
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Shepherd, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)


Gray, James
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Green, Damian
Spring, Richard


Greenway, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Grieve, Dominic
Steen, Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Desmond


Hammond, Philip
Syms Robert


Heald, Oliver
Tapsell, sir peter


Horam, John
Taylor lan (Esher & Walton)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor John M (Solihull)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tredinnick, David


Hunter, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie Andrew


Johnson Smith,
Viggers, Peter


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Walter, Robert



Waterson, Nigel


Key, Robert
Whittingdale, John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Willetts, David


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Yeo, Tim


Lansley, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Leigh, Edward



Letwin, Oliver
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. John Randall and


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Alexander, Douglas
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Allan, Richard
Bennett, Andrew F


Allen, Graham
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Betts, Clive


Ashton, Joe
Blizzard, Bob


Atherton, Ms Candy
Borrow, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Austin, John
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Baker, Norman
Bradshaw, Ben


Ballard, Jackie
Brake, Tom


Banks, Tony
Breed, Colin


Barron, Kevin
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Browne, Desmond






Buck, Ms Karen
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burgon, Colin
Godsiff, Roger


Burstow, Paul
Golding, Mrs Llin


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)



Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grogan, John


Cann, Jamie
Hain, Peter


Caplin, Ivor
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Casale, Roger
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Caton, Martin
Hancock, Mike


Cawsey, Ian
Hanson, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chaytor, David
Healey, John


Chidgey, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clwyd, Ann
Hope, Phil


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cohen, Harry
Howells, Dr Kim


Coleman, lain
Hoyle, Lindsay


Colman, Tony
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corston, Jean
Hurst, Alan


Cotter, Brian
Hutton, John


Cox, Tom
Illsley, Eric


Cranston, Ross
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cummings, John
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jenkins, Brian


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dalyell, Tam



Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)



Davidson, Ian
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dawson, Hilton
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dismore, Andrew
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dobbin, Jim
Kemp, Fraser


Donohoe, Brian H
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Dowd, Jim



Drew, David
Khabra, Piara S


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Ennis, Jeff
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Feam, Ronnie
Laxton, Bob


Fisher, Mark
Lepper, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Leslie, Christopher


Flint, Caroline
Levitt, Tom


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Linton, Martin


Foster, Don (Bath)
Love, Andrew


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McAvoy, Thomas


Fyfe, Maria
McCabe, Steve


Galloway, George
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gapes, Mike



Gardiner, Barry
McDonagh, Siobhain


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Macdonald, Calum


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonnell, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McFall, John


Gidley, Sandra
McGuire, Mrs Anne





McIsaac, Shona
Sanders, Adrian


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sarwar, Mohammad


Mackinlay, Andrew
Savidge, Malcolm


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Sawford, Phil


McNulty, Tony
Shaw, Jonathan


MacShane, Denis
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mactaggart, Fiona
Shipley, Ms Debra


McWalter, Tony
Singh, Marsha


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)



Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Merron, Gillian
Soley, Clive


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Spellar, John


Moffatt, Laura
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stevenson, George


Morley, Elliot
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stoate, Dr Howard



Stringer, Graham


Mountford, Kali
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mudie, George
Stunell, Andrew


Mullin, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)



Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Norris, Dan
Timms, Stephen


O'Brien, Bill (Normarton)
Tipping, Paddy


Olner, Bill
Todd, Mark


O'Neill, Martin
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Öpik, Lembit
Trickett, Jon


Organ, Mrs Diana
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pike, Peter L
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pollard, Kerry
Tynan, Bill


Pond, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Pope, Greg
Walley, Ms Joan


Pound, Stephen
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watts, David


Primarolo, Dawn
Webb, Steve


Purchase, Ken
White, Brian


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Quinn, Lawrie
Wicks, Malcolm


Rammell, Bill
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Rendel, David



Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rogers, Allan
Wills, Michael


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rowlands, Ted
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Roy, Frank
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Ruane, Chris
Wyatt, Derek


Ruddock, Joan



Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tellers for the Noes:


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Mr. Mike Hall and


Ryan, Ms Joan
Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House condemns the Opposition for making no commitment to the welfare of either today's or tomorrow's pensioners, opposing every step the Government has taken to help


pensioners and producing proposals for next year's basic pension uprating which amount to bribing pensioners with money which is already theirs; recognises the legacy of increasing pensioner poverty left by the last Government; applauds the Government for doing more to help all pensioners, spending £6½billion more than planned by the last Government, but most for those who need help most by concentrating half the additional money on the poorest quarter of pensioners; congratulates the Government for tackling poverty directly with the Minimum Income Guarantee. helping take-up through better publicity and simplified claims procedures; supports the Government's plans to help those pensioners who just fail to qualify for the Minimum Income Guarantee by raising the capital limits to £12,000 from April 2001 and committing itself to bringing forward proposals for a Pensioner Credit which will reward thrift; congratulates the Government for helping all pensioners with their costs, including Winter Fuel Payments and free television licences for people aged 75 and over; and applauds the Government's strategy for ensuring that, in the future, nobody who has put in a lifetime of work or caring need retire onto means-tested benefits, including a commitment to the basic state pension, a state second pension which does more for 18 million people including those on low and moderate pay, with caring responsibilities or broken work records because of disability, and new flexible, low cost, stakeholder pensions.

Genetically Modified Crops

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Before I call the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), I must tell the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the Government's mishandling of the consequences of the presence of GM seeds in a batch of conventional oil seed rape seeds imported to Britain from Canada, which were subsequently planted for commercial purposes; and condemns the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's response which has led to a collapse in public confidence and unnecessary difficulties for the agricultural industry.
The motion is deliberately narrow in its focus. It deals with a subject of deep concern to the public, to all consumers of food and to farmers. Today's debate is not about the merits of genetic modification, although there is a proper and lively discussion about that, even among the highest families in the land. The debate is not about the crop trials, the principle of which we strongly support, although we have reservations about some aspects of their conduct.
I greatly welcome the review of separation distances. We have repeatedly called for those distances to be increased, most recently three weeks ago, when the Minister made his statement to the House. Once again, it has taken a debate in the House organised by the Conservative party to force the Minister to act. I hope that the review will be swift, before yet more damage is done to conventional and organic farmers.
As hon. Members will not have had time to consider the terms of the consultation paper issued today about separation distances, I am sure that the Minister agrees that it would be wrong to try to use this debate to discuss its details, although I hope that the House will have an early opportunity to do so. This debate is about the way in which the Minister ignored warnings that he was given, failed to contact farmers who were innocent victims in the crisis, and failed to advise consumers whose ability to choose GM-free food was threatened. It is about how the Government kept secret information that should have been published; about claims made by the Minister in Parliament that turned out not to be true; about the dithering, confusion and, finally, panic that gripped the Minister; about how individual farmers now face bills running to thousands of pounds that could have been avoided; and about the destruction of public confidence in a potentially valuable technology.
Professor Malcolm Grant—the Government's choice to head the latest advisory body on biotechnology—said this week:
The episode has not been spectacularly well-handled.
To avoid developing a reputation for understatement, he continued:
The public are confused, bemused, underinformed and feel disenfranchised in this whole debate.
After such straight-from-the-shoulder comments, Professor Grant will doubtless soon join the other distinguished experts whom the Government appoint to advisory bodies and then refuse to consult in case their advice is inconvenient or embarrassing.
Professor Grant was right about the disfranchisement of the public and right too, if his words were accurately reported in The Times, to believe that the public and farmers affected by the contaminated seed should have been told much sooner.
This latest and worst example of ministerial blundering and cover-up over genetically modified crops began seven weeks and three days ago on Monday 17 April, when Advanta Seeds warned the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, that GM-contaminated oilseed rape seeds had been imported to Britain from Canada. At that stage, the company that imported the contaminated seeds, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, were all aware of the facts. The public, of course, were not and neither were the farmers—some of whom at that date had bought seeds but not yet planted them—or the seed merchants whom Advanta had supplied with contaminated seed and who may unwittingly have continued to sell it to their customers.
Under those circumstances, time was of the essence, but the Minister remained silent. No public statement was made for more than four weeks. Then, on 17 May, a junior Minister replied to a planted question that was so innocently worded that nobody could have guessed its true significance. The answer said very little, but it confirmed that genetically modified crops were being grown commercially in Britain—something that Ministers had promised time and again over the past 12 months would not happen until the current programme of crop trials had been completed and analysed.
If Ministers thought that they could get away with sneaking out an important and damaging announcement by making it late in the afternoon, they soon discovered how wrong they were. Such was the outcry that evening that the Minister was forced to come to Parliament the next day and make an oral statement—something that he should have done in the first place.
The Minister's reluctance to come clean on such a sensitive issue may have been due to the flimsy basis of many of the claims that he made in Parliament that day. Let us look at what he said. He said:
We moved quickly to establish the facts.
Just how quickly we shall find out in a moment. Later, in answer to a question of mine, he said:
We established the facts and put them in the public domain.
The truth is that the facts were not put in the public domain for four and a half weeks after MAFF officials first knew of them. No explanation has yet been given for that long delay. We shall examine those four and a half weeks in a moment.
First, let us consider another of the Minister's claims. He said:
In this whole matter, the Government are proceeding on the basis of professional advice provided … to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment … on the environmental issues.
What the Minister did not say was that that advice was obtained from somewhat limited sources. English Nature, the Government's statutory adviser on nature conservation

and an independent body funded by the taxpayer, might have been thought to have a view about the matter. However, during the whole four-and-a-half week period of silence from the Minister, English Nature was not consulted. Nobody at MAFF or DETR even bothered to pick up the phone and have a word with one of the highly qualified scientists and environmentalists on the public payroll at English Nature.
Of course, by ignoring English Nature the Minister followed a precedent set by the Prime Minister, whose assertion in Parliament in February last year that the Government were proceeding on genetically modified issues on the basis of sound science was contradicted, within 24 hours by the chairman of English Nature, herself a recently created Labour peer.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the genetic modification involved, known as RT73, was approved for food use in crop trials by the previous Government?

Mr. Yeo: The hon. Lady will receive a brownie point from the Whips for reading out the planted brief, but I am happy to confirm that the Conservative Government approved that particular crop for use in crop trials, a part B approval which under the law is fundamentally different from the part C approval that is needed for the commercial growing of that crop. As the hon. Lady might remember, had she been in the House on the day the Minister made his statement, I suggested that the Government could treat all the accidentally planted crops as crop trials, and that would avoid the pressure that subsequently grew for the destruction of the crops.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): We could not do that. The crop trials are for genetically modified crops. The problem involved conventional crops with a small degree of GM contamination.

Mr. Yeo: It would still have been possible for the Government to apply the same conditions and monitoring procedures to those crops to prevent an illegal activity from continuing. Let us return to what the Minister said on 18 May. He claimed that the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—had
looked at this specific incident and concluded that there is no risk.
When the Minister made that claim, the incident had not even been discussed at a meeting of ACRE, nor was it on the published agenda for the next meeting of ACRE on 25 May. However, I understand that members of ACRE were contacted individually. A Minister who recognised that public confidence in genetic modification will be restored only if the Government are more open in their decision making might have explained how the ACRE advice was obtained, especially as there was a discrepancy between what DETR told ACRE members and what the Minister told Parliament.
The advice note produced by ACRE on 17 May, without the benefit of any collective discussion, said:
In conclusion, ACRE considers that the risks to human health and to the environment are very low. However, the Committee welcomes the precautionary steps proposed by DETR to verify and monitor independently the situation in the field and report back to the Committee.


Hon. Members should note that DETR had obviously told ACRE members that the situation was being monitored in the field. However, one day after ACRE issued that advice, the Minister told the House:
The advice that the Government collectively have received is that it is not necessary to trace … the crops.—[Offical Report, 18 May 2000: Vol. 350, c. 473–75.]
The advice from ACRE contradicts what the Minister said. How could the crops be monitored in the field, as DETR told ACRE members, if they were not even to be traced?
A week later, at Agriculture questions, the Minister made an astonishing claim. He said:
I am not keeping any information secret. I have gone out of my way to be candid with the House.—[Official Report, 25 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 1101.]
Equally seriously, five and a half weeks after the Minister first learned that GM oilseed rape was being grown commercially in Britain, he still had no advice to offer the farmers on whose land those crops were growing. Another two days passed, during which the French Government ordered their farmers to destroy the equivalent crops in France.
In London, the Minister continued to either. Finally, on 27 May, advice of a kind was given to farmers. It was pointed out that that GM crop did not have approval to be sold, and the Minister suggested that farmers could destroy the crops now and replant—a suggestion that would have been rather more useful if it had been made five weeks earlier—or they could continue growing the crop up to the harvesting stage. Even then, the Minister shrank from actually advising farmers directly to pull up those crops.
What changed, other than the pressure of public opinion and the usual slide by the Minister from confusion into panic, between 18 May, when the Minister made his first statement to Parliament saying everything was fine, and 27 May, when he pointed out that the crops were unsaleable—a pronouncement that many farmers felt left them with no option but to destroy their crops? What new information became available to the Minister during that time? If the answer is none, the whole five-and-a-half week delay becomes even more puzzling.

Mr. Brown: That issue is probably at the heart of the debate and we might as well get it cleared up now. The important new development was the continuing legal advice that was coming to me and other Ministers. Once we had established the legal position, we acted immediately to put the best advice would give to farmers into the public domain.

Mr. Yeo: People will not draw much comfort from the fact that it took five and a half weeks for the lawyers at MAFF to discover whether a law passed in 1990 was being broken.

Mr. Brown: rose—

Mr. Yeo: I have given way once. The Minister will get his chance. [Interruption.] I have repeated exactly what the Minister said. I shall give way in a moment, but I wish to establish exactly what happened during that period.
During the four-and-a-half week period of silence after Advanta contacted MAFF on 17 April, we know that the Minister did not consult English Nature. We know that he

did not call a meeting of ACRE. As agriculture is a devolved issue, it might have been thought that the time was used to consult the Minister's Scottish and Welsh counterparts, especially as even MAFF might have realised that planting of the crop was still taking place in Scotland after 17 April. However, apparently, the Scottish and Welsh Ministers were not informed until 15 May, four weeks after the Ministry in London had learned the truth, and just two days before Parliament was told. Whether the Minister will now tell us that he needed legal advice before informing the Scottish Minister is something that I expect he will explain later in the debate.

Mr. Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Yeo: No, the right hon. Gentleman will have a chance in a moment. The Scottish Minister for Rural Affairs told Members of the Scottish Parliament of his deep anger and annoyance at being kept in the dark. He said:
I'm even more annoyed there was a total lack of communication between MAFF and ourselves … We are writing to them to make it clear that this is unacceptable.

Mr. James Gray: Should not the Minister have consulted his newly established Food Standards Agency very early on in this four-and-a-half week period? Does my hon. Friend know whether he did so?

Mr. Yeo: As far as I know, the FSA was consulted, although I do not know on exactly what date.
What is certain is that, after 17 April, some farmers who had purchased contaminated seed from Advanta in good faith proceeded to sow it. In a letter to The Times on 25 May, the Marquess of Lansdowne made it clear that the contaminated seed was sown on 65 hectares in Perthshire two weeks after MAFF knew that it had been sold to farmers. He wrote:
It must be asked why those who had purchased the seed were not informed immediately and, secondly, instructed by the ministry to destroy the seed (or the crop, if it had already been planted) to ensure GM plants are contained in research environments only.
Why indeed? Before I answer that question, I want to examine the position of the importer, Advanta Seeds UK.
Apart from the Minister and his civil servants, the company was alone in knowing about the contaminated seed. It knew to whom it had been sold, so why did the company not contact its customers after it had contacted the Minister? If it had done so, it might have been able to minimise its liability.
Last Friday, the general manager of Advanta, Mr. Mike Ruthven, told me that the company would have liked to warn its customers. The only reason that it did not do so was that it was asked by MAFF officials to keep the whole matter secret. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cover up."] When Advanta went to the Government to make a clean breast of its blunder, it was asked not to say a word about the matter to anyone else. It was MAFF advice to Advanta, and nothing else, that ensured that farmers were kept in the dark after 17 April. It was the Ministry's advice that allowed farmers to go on planting GM seeds in Britain in the period after 17 April. That makes a complete mockery of all the assurances from Ministers that commercial planting of GM crops would not take place.
What on earth is the point of all the carefully monitored crop trials when, knowingly and willingly, MAFF allows the planting and growing of GM crops on sites that are not even identified, let alone monitored?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. There is a clear obligation on Advanta to tell its customers that it had sold them a defective product, as soon as it knew that it had done so. It received no advice from Government not to tell its customers what had happened.

Mr. Yeo: I hope that documents eventually will prove who is right in this matter. I noted that the general manager of Advanta last Friday said to me exactly what he said to a reporter from The Guardian, as a report in this morning's newspaper confirms.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): It does not confirm that.

Mr. Yeo: From a sedentary position, the Parliamentary Secretary says that the report does not confirm that, so I shall read it to the House. Mr. Ruthven states that MAFF told him
that they would want to make some tests themselves and not to say anything about it until they had sorted that out. I took a lot of comfort, from that and as a result did not take any action to inform farmers or seed merchants.

Mr. Brown: There is no instruction to the company not to tell its customers that it had sold them a defective product. Clearer than that I cannot be.

Mr. Yeo: The Minister appears to be saying that what Advanta told The Guardian last night is inaccurate. If so, I am surprised that officials from MAFF or DETR did not also give a quote to The Guardian, as they were invited to.

Mr. Tom King: The Minister appeared to choose his words carefully, but of course every employee at MAFF is part of the government. Would it not be interesting to know whether the Minister is seeking to absolve Ministers from responsibility by isolating officials and trying to hide behind them, and whether any public body was involved in the advice given to Advanta?

Mr. Yeo: My right hon. Friend makes a most important point. The way in which this matter is developing means that the documents, notes and records of the meetings that took place—even those involving only Ministry officials and the company—must be placed in the public domain.

Mr. David Heath: I, too, was struck by the candour of the quotation from Mr. Ruthven. Is it possible that the civil servants to whom he refers belong to DETR and that the Minister is answering only for his own officials? It seems clear that wholly unhelpful advice was given.

Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is possible that the officials who spoke to the company belong to DETR. I understand that the first meeting took place at DETR, with a MAFF official also present.

I suspected that the Minister might take this line of response, so I attempted to speak to Mr. Ruthven before coming into the Chamber for this debate to make absolutely sure that The Guardian had reported what he said accurately. Unfortunately, he was not available, but I have no doubt that we will get to the truth of the matter shortly.
Given the Labour Government's appalling record of secrecy and media manipulation over GM issues, many people will suspect that MAFF may have hoped, on 17 April and during the days and weeks of silence that followed, that the issue would go away, that no one would find out and that an embarrassing problem could be covered up.
The Minister has had six and a half weeks to think about the matter. He owes the public a full and detailed explanation of what happened and why, and this afternoon's debate gives him the chance to start that explanation. We know that he understands the seriousness of the issue now, because two weeks ago he told the House:
To knowingly corrupt seed products is of course an offence in this country, as is knowingly releasing them into the environment.— [Official Report, 25 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 1099.]
From 17 April onwards, until the Government came clean on 17 May, unauthorised releases of contaminated seed into the environment continued to take place. However, although those releases were unauthorised, they were not entirely unknown. One of the people who knew about them was the Minister. He knew about them and could have stopped them, but chose not to do so.
From reports in the press now, it appears that at first the Ministry's officials may not have realised the full gravity of the situation. However, it staggers belief and strains credulity that it should take five and a half weeks for civil servants to find out the true seriousness of the problem. Not even civil servants at MAFF or DETR could be as incompetent as that.
I hope that the Minister will explain precisely what advice his civil servants gave to Advanta. I hope that he will publish the minutes of the meetings that his civil servants had with Advanta. I hope that he will tell the House when he first knew that GM seeds had been planted. I hope that he will say when he first realised that an offence might have been committed. I hope that he will explain what the tests were that his officials told Advanta that they wanted to carry out. Will he now publish the results of those tests?
On 18 May, the Minister told the House that officials had been in continuous contact with the company. When did he or his officials warn Advanta that the situation was even more serious than was first thought?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman calls on me to be candid, and I always try to be candid with the House—as, deep in their hearts, Conservatives Members know. I shall therefore share in full with the House the note that has just been given to me. It says that officials at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at that meeting gave no instructions to Advanta not to contact farmers or merchants. Nor did officials say they were going to do tests—Advanta was going to do further


tests. If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, just for the sake of absolute transparency, I am quite happy to cross the Floor and give this note to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Yeo: I welcome this new spirit of candour.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Yeo: In a moment.
I note that the Minister has contradicted specifically the report in today's edition of The Guardian, and I am aware that the reporter concerned gave an opportunity to spokesmen from both MAFF and DETR to comment last night on that report. I believe that this sequence of events makes it even more important that the Minister should place in the public domain the contemporary records of the meetings concerned. Given that he is willing to share with me the scribbled advice given by him to the civil servants in the box, I trust that he will publish those minutes as soon as possible after this debate.
I repeat my last two questions: when did the Minister or his officials warn Advanta that the situation was more serious than first thought, and when were lawyers first consulted? If the Minister is unable to answer those questions fully, the suspicion will grow that he and his officials may indeed have been aware that there was a risk that a crime was being committed. In case anyone believes that that crime was just a technicality—a sort of environmental parking ticket—let me point out that contradicting the relevant section of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, if tried in a Crown court, carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and an unlimited fine.
I hope that the Minister will explain both his actions and his inactions in this matter. I hope that his statements will be supported by documents available to the public. He must understand that his previous statements have reduced trust and increased suspicion. The Government's abject failure to keep their promises about not allowing commercial planting of GM crops until the trials were completed, their dithering and inaction in the face of knowledge that the law might be being broken, their lack of openness and candour in dealing with farmers, the public and Parliament, mean that if the Minister confines his reply today to announcements about yet more advisory bodies, future random checks on seed imports and consultation over separation distances, he will be admitting his own negligence. He will be condemning himself as a man who cannot be trusted, whose weakness and incompetence put farmers and the environment at risk and who, even by the abysmally low standards of this Labour Government, is not fit to hold office.
I commend the motion to the House.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
endorses Her Majesty's Government's approach to the development of GM technology in agriculture; believes that the Government has responded in a responsible, open, considered and proportionate way to the recent discovery of the adventitious presence of GM seed in conventional oilseed rape seed; supports the priority the Government

has given and continues to give to the protection of public health and the environment, and its continued determination to act on the best available scientific advice; applauds the creation of the new, independent Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission to provide strategic advice on GM issues; welcomes the announcement by the seed company Advanta, following discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that they will provide a fair and equitable compensation package to affected farmers; and commends the Government for the action it is taking at both national and international level to minimise the risk of a similar incident occurring in the future.
The last remarks of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) were particularly personal and offensive. If he really believes that I should not hold the office that I hold, there is a parliamentary procedure that he can adopt. I notice that he has not done so. However, it reflects credit on the hon. Gentleman—I almost said "horrible"—that he is so ashamed of his speaking material, with its grotesque misrepresentation of events, that he was reluctant to take interventions.
Right hon. and hon. Members will be familiar with the plays of Robert Bolt, particularly "A Man for All Seasons", in which Thomas More is framed by his enemies. After a particularly indefensible and implausible charge is put against him, More says:
That's a horse that won't run, Master Secretary.
Thomas Cromwell replies:
There will be others.
So it is with Agriculture Ministers.
We have had a succession of complaints from the Conservative party, suggesting that the Government are doing things wrongly. Only a few months ago, all the hedges were going to be ripped up in this country and farmers would be denied their arable aid payments, pork chops would have to be de-boned, the shepherds' crooks industry would be closed down, the beef on the bone ban would be reintroduced, our pets would have to be boiled before going abroad, and so on. This is the latest attempt, and it is more pathetic than most. The over-riding point that the Government established early on, and which the hon. Member for South Suffolk has not challenged, is that there is no risk to public health or to the environment in this accident.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to The Times, because on Wednesday 7 June it contained a very good commentary on GM crops issues by Nigel Hawkes. He observed, although it was not his main point, that the hon. Gentleman
was raising fears rather than addressing the issue.

Mr. Yeo: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Brown: I will give way in a moment, but let me just finish my introduction.
It is very telling that the key charge made by the Opposition, as I pointed out on 18 May, is about process, not substance. The Government have responded in a responsible, measured and proportionate way to this incident. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Yeo: The right hon. Gentleman referred to an article in The Times. He will be familiar, as we all are, with the consequences of being quoted out of context. The quotation referred to in the article was taken from a


remark I made to explain the difference in concept between genetic modification and ordinary plant breeding. It was taken out of context by the journalist concerned.

Mr. Brown: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation. Nevertheless, the point remains that his attack on the Government is about the process, not the substance. [Interruption.] It is impossible to interpret his speech this afternoon any other way. So let me remind right hon. and hon. Members of the key facts as I set them out for the House in my statement on 18 May.
The Government were advised by Advanta Seeds on 17 April that some of its supplies of conventional rapeseed sold and sown in 1999 and 2000 might have contained a small proportion of genetically modified seed. This seed had been sold and sown in several European Union member states, possibly including the United Kingdom. The full facts were not known at that time.
It now appears that the seed was sold in France, Germany, Sweden and Luxembourg, as well as the UK. This is a problem with EU-wide and international implications, and it requires a common solution.
On learning of the potential problem from the company, the Government took action to investigate the implications for public health and the environment, as well as to assess the legal implications, so that appropriate action could be taken. The Government established that the genetic modification in question—RT73—had previously been approved in the UK for food use in 1995 and for field trials in 1997.
The expert committees specifically tasked with examining the food and environmental safety of genetically modified products—the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes—had both cleared it. The Government asked both ACRE and the Food Standards Agency to look at the circumstances of that specific incident.

Sir Robert Smith: rose—

Mr. Gray: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. Brown: I want to make my presentation. If Opposition Members think that it is incomplete, I am willing to take interventions at the end. I ask the House to hear me first. I shall take interventions later.
Those committees confirmed—initially and subsequently in formal advice—that the product presented no risk to human health or to the environment. That advice has been placed in the Library.
Having established those facts, the Government were in a position to provide balanced and proportionate advice on the implications of the incident and on how to deal with it. My Ministers of State accordingly did so in both Houses on 17 May, when they set out the steps that the Government are taking to address the wider issues on seed purity highlighted by the incident.
The Government have been criticised for delay. However, as I have already made clear, our approach throughout has been to establish as many of the facts as

possible so that we can give accurate and responsible guidance to farmers and consumers. Given the uncertainties of the incident when it was first reported to us, it would have been premature and potentially alarmist to have published incomplete information. In any case, we were reassured at an early stage—that is a crucial point—by the knowledge that the GM product in question did not pose a threat to health or to the environment. Of course, we had the 1995 and 1997 technical assessments to guide us.

Mr. Gray: The Minister heard from Advanta on 17 April. On wha dale did he first consult English Nature and the Food Standards Agency?

Mr. Brown: The FSA was consulted at a very early stage—almost immediately. I shall come to the point on English Nature in a moment.

Mr. Tom King: rose—

Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) and then I ask the House to let me make the presentation.

Mr. King: The Minister is making a clear and understandable case that, when Advanta produced that information, there were good reasons to investigate the matter further so that it would not give rise to concern. On those grounds, it would have been extremely sensible for officials to advise that Advanta should be asked not to say anything at that time. Yet the Minister strenuously denies that they lid any such thing. It seems to me that the matter could easily be cleared up. In the interests of openness, do I understand that he is undertaking to provide the minute of the meeting between officials and Advanta, so that we can read what was actually said?

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has served in government. He knows the position on providing written records of meetings. I have to rely on the assurances given to me. I was not at the meeting. I do not even know whether there was a written record.

Sir Robert Smith: Obviously that matter creates some concern. The Minister talked about not publishing the information. Will he explain why he could not share it with other rural affairs Departments in the United Kingdom? When Members of this place write to MAFF about certain issues, their letters are passed to those other Departments for reply. How can we have confidence that those Departments know what MAFF knows when they write such replies?
Furthermore, although the Minister minimises the risk to health and to the environment, there was certainly a commercial risk to those people who bought the seed.

Mr. Brown: The territorial Departments should have been drawn more fully into the discussions at an early stage. For that, I apologise on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Brown: I should like to make some progress, but I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman later.
Consideration of all these issues takes place against a background of already heightened public concern about GM products. Our approach, which was paralleled by other affected countries—the decisions are not unique to the UK—was first to seek the advice of our experts. Because the matter is complex, that includes legal advice as to the legal situation, as the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) hinted in his intervention on his hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk.
Officials from the FSA and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions were involved in discussions as soon as the incident was reported to the Government. The process of consulting the expert committees was, of necessity, a continuing one, because the early information we received was incomplete. The Government obtained early and informal reactions from the secretaries to the committees on the basis of the first and incomplete information. Subsequently, the secretaries consulted committee members and were able to convey their advice to the Government.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk tried to make much of the fact that English Nature was not consulted by the Government. The fact is that English Nature advises on nature conservation issues. The key questions in this incident related to environmental and human health implications. Those are for ACRE and for the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, whose specific remit is to look at the implications of genetic modifications.
Efforts have been made to portray English Nature as being at odds with the Government over this incident. That is simply not the case. The chairman of English Nature has confirmed that English Nature does not think the affected crops need to be destroyed. English Nature has offered advice on the nature conservation aspects of the incident—as would be expected, because that is its statutory function. An English Nature expert, Brian Johnson, said publicly—on the BBC—that any risk of GM pollen from these plants pollinating native plants was "vanishingly small". The hon. Member for South Suffolk referred to dangers to the organic farm movement. He did not say where the organic oilseed rape was located and he did not say whether there was any; it would be extraordinary if there were. The advice that Brian Johnson has given is consistent with the advice that we have received from ACRE.
The Government have been accused of allowing farmers unwittingly to plant the crop by delaying an announcement. If there were anything in that charge, it would be a serious one.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: Let me deal with this issue before I give way to the hon. Gentlemen and to anyone who may be queuing up behind me. I see that at least part of the House is satisfied.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: The right hon. Gentleman has no support from those behind him.

Mr. Brown: Come the Division, the hon. Gentleman will find that he is wrong.
The fact is that the Government were first notified by the seed company once the planting season for the variety was already well under way. I have already explained, exhaustively, that we needed to establish the facts and the technical and legal implications before we could make any sensible announcement. If anyone doubts my motive before I made the announcement, let me make it clear that I wanted to find a workable way forward for this country's farmers who, after all, are the innocent party in this case. That is what we were striving to do. I shall have something to say that will interest those who care more about our farmers rather than making political mischief.
The Government have followed up the announcement of 17 May with further action on the practical and legal implications. The legal advice to Ministers is that we have the power to order the destruction of a crop in specific circumstances. Let me make this clear: if there were a threat to human health or the environment, we would order the destruction of the affected crops. There is not such a threat, so the legislation cannot be invoked. That is the legal advice to Ministers.
Therefore, as the advice I and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment published on 28 May made clear, it is for individual fanners to decide whether to destroy or to maintain the crops. However, the disposal options for the harvested crop are likely to be extremely limited—this point was perfectly properly raised—as there is no consent for the GM element of the crop to be marketed.
To offer farmers greater flexibility in this difficult situation, I negotiated a special derogation to the rules for EU crop subsidy payments. That allows farmers to claim subsidy payments on crops planted up to 15 June, instead of 31 May, as normal. Farmers therefore have two options as the position stands. Thanks to the extended EU planting deadline, some farmers may have the option of destroying the affected crop and planting another crop in its place. Others will wish to maintain the crop as normal to qualify for EU subsidy payments.
The expert advice to Government is that these crops present no danger to the environment. However, in discussion with the National Farmers Union and the seed company Advanta, I have explored the possibility of negotiating a further derogation to the EU subsidy scheme rules to allow farmers to mow or destroy the crop straight away rather than to maintain it to maturity. They will still qualify for the subsidy payments.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend explain why farmers need to look to European subsidies to make up for the losses that they may incur? Why is the company not liable? It sold a product that was not what it was claimed to be.

Mr. Brown: This issue is fraught with legal peril, including points about the mitigation of loss, and it has taken time to find a way through it. I hope that we have found a clear-cut way and 1 shall explain it to the House.
I must stress that what I am about to explain is not legal as things now stand, but my officials are in urgent discussion with the European Commission to see whether it is a possible option. I believe that it is the most desirable way forward. I and Ministers in other member states are pressing for the outcome and a decision is due to be voted on today.
If we have a clear outcome by the end of today or tomorrow, the House and the industry, including the farmers affected, will be told. I believe that the proposal offers the best way forward, which is also the view of Advanta and the National Farmers Union.

Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister's legal advice include an analysis of the damages that could become liabilities under the principle that the polluter pays in both the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and arrangements in Community law that are being extended under the proposed directive on environmental liability? Yesterday, the Select Committee on European Scrutiny voted for a debate on the Floor of the House on the directive, but, regrettably, that decision was overturned by the Leader of the House this morning.
Does the Minister agree that if the Government are to be open and transparent, we should be able to see all the legal advice and have access to all the material in the Library? The Government should be more candid and open in debating such questions, so that the British people and the farmers—whom we rightly say are innocent—do not find themselves at a severe disadvantage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention is too long.

Mr. Brown: My days as a Government business manager have ceased, and I have moved on to a happier billet. I am therefore afraid that I am not able to respond as I might otherwise have done to the hon. Gentleman's request. Hon. Members will be aware that Ministers are not supposed to interpret the law inside or outside the House.
I have been working to try to find a reasonable way through the matter which is fair to the company, mitigates the losses and means that farmers who are innocent victims do not suffer resultant financial hardship.

Mr. Paterson: The Minister admitted to the Select Committee on Agriculture that he was responsible only for the seed aspects of genetically modified crops. Environmental matters are dealt with by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, food matters by the Food Standards Agency, and presentation, I believe, rests in the hands of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who in May told "Today" that she was not happy with the presentation in connection with such crops.
Who is in charge? Would it not be sensible to have someone in overall control of all GM matters, to stop those extraordinary muddles involving the Department, its sister Departments and the devolved Assemblies?

Mr. Brown: The delay that is occurring while the issue is fully considered does not mean, as the hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest, that there is a muddle. Such matters are co-ordinated by a Cabinet Committee, of which my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is in charge.

Mr. Gray: The Minister for the Cabinet Office, whom the Minister has prayed in aid, said on "Today" on 22 May that the Government had made a mistake in not

telling the public about the contamination. Will the Minister respond to that? A moment ago, he dismissed his noble Friend, Baroness Young, when he said that English Nature had nothing to do with the matter because it is concerned with animals. Baroness Young said:
The UK statutory nature conservation agencies must be consulted
about similar incidents in future. What is the Minister's response to his colleagues' remarks?

Mr. Brown: I did not dismiss the views of English Nature. Its statutory responsibilities are for nature conservation and it has offered us helpful advice on such matters. I fully agree with the views of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I hope that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: I would like to make progress, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams).

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I suggest that we contrast our debate with the dozen or more debates on the serious problem of BSE that we had in the early 1990s. We are nit-picking about insignificant dates in April and May and about a crop that was not a threat to human health or the environment. Uprooting those crops would cost about £3 million, whereas the problems that occurred in the decade in which the Conservative party was in office involved a cost of £4 billion, and are still with us.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out again to the House that there is no threat to human health or the environment. There are important issues, including legal issues, involving the supply chain, and the Government have been working hard to resolve those so that there is ultimately no economic loss to farmers, and the seed company is treated fairly. We will take steps to make sure that we minimise the possibility of such an incident occurring in future. I give way to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald).

Mr. Oliver Heald: The Minister was asked whether advice had been given to Advanta not to give information to its customers. His reply was that no instructions had been given to Advanta to tell its customers about the seeds. There is a difference between advice and instructions. Is there no question that the Minister is using weasel words, and that advice, but not an actual instruction, was given to Advanta that it should not tell its customers about the seeds? I hope that there is no question of that, because the Minister is under a duty to be full and frank with the House.

Mr. Brown: I do not think that there is a Minister in this Government who tries harder to be candid with the House, and I could not have been more candid with the explanation that I have given; I handed it to the hon. Member for South Suffolk, who speaks for the Opposition


on such matters. I know of no semantic differentiation of the sort that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire mentions. I cannot be more open than that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: I give way to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key).

Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is made clear in resolutions of the House that Ministers should be as open as possible. There is a difference between advice and an instruction, and the House needs to know which was given because this is an important point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have got the gist of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say, and it is not for the Chair to interpret words or advice that are being debated. This is a matter for the debate, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find other ways of pursuing the point.

Mr. Brown: I offered to give way to the hon. Member for Salisbury, who is an old sparring partner of mine, although in those days he was the Minister and I was the Back-Bench MP making a nuisance of himself.

Mr. Robert Key: I am certainly not making a nuisance of myself. If the right hon. Gentleman was convinced that there was no danger in the crop being planted, on what grounds did the French Government instruct farmers in France to destroy their crops?

Mr. Brown: It is not for me to interpret the law in France, but apparently the French Government have the power to do that under their legal code. We have the power to do that under our legal code, but only in very specific circumstances that are defined in the Environmental Protection Act. Like me, the French Agriculture Minister would have had in mind the fact that there is no marketing consent, so the issue for Ministers is to find a way to safeguard arable payments to farmers.
As those who follow such matters will know, the European support mechanism is an important element in growing oilseed rape, so we want to preserve farmers' rights to European aid, but we have to find a way within the law to deal with the lack of marketing consent. That is what we are trying to do here; Jean Glavany is trying to do that in France; Karl-Heinz Funke and Margareta Winberg are doing the same in Germ, my and Sweden respectively, and the Minister in Luxembourg has the same task. We all face a common problem, and we have, I hope, arrived at a common solution, which will work for farmers and be fair to the industry.
That brings me to compensation for farmers' losses, which is essentially a matter between the farmers affected and the seed company. However, the House will want to know that I have had a constructive meeting with representatives of Advanta Seeds last week, and the Government welcome the company's announcement on 2 June that it will provide a fair and equitable compensation package for the affected farmers.
Opposition Members are trying very hard, and completely unconvincingly, to pin the blame for the incident on the Government and to argue that taxpayers'

money should be used to deal with the consequences. It was not the Government who produced the seed and sold it to farmers; the Government's role in this incident is limited to dealing responsibly and proportionately with the consequences once the company had come forward to notify the Government of the problem. This we have done and will continue to do.
The precise circumstances that resulted in the presence of GM seed in the non-GM batches are still being investigated. My officials are in contact with the Canadian authorities and the seed company to establish the details. One of my technical advisers has visited Canada to liaise with the authorities, and one possible factor in the incident may relate to the separation distances used to produce the seed crop. We are investigating that issue.
In line with the response that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on 18 May, I can tell the House that the Government are undertaking a review of separation distances, including a scientific review of the relationship between separation and crop purity. We shall consult farmers—both conventional and organic producers—and other interested groups and see what lessons may be learned from the Advanta incident.

Mr. David Drew: I have made similar points before, but the other matter that must be explored is the importance of every country signing up to the Montreal biodiversity protocol because until all countries do so, segregation will remain a difficult issue, as the Select Committee on Agriculture proved. The very least that we can expect is that each country will police its own production.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Underpinning all this is the inescapable fact that the seed business is international, and if we intend to regulate it, standards must be set. There are currently gaps in European Union and international law.
The incident has highlighted the importance of putting in place up-to-date regulatory systems to reflect the implications of the worldwide development of GM technology for the seed industry. That includes the need for clear and explicit product descriptions for consumers. An important objective of the British Government is to protect consumer choice. As my hon. Friend says, the seed trade is international.
The regulation of seed purity is an EU and international issue, and action is required at EU and international level. That is why we have raised the subject as a matter of urgency with the European Commission and our EU partners, and in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. I have written to Commissioner Byrne urging him to accelerate the setting of new EU standards for seed purity. I have discussed that matter with my colleagues at the recent informal meeting of EU Agriculture Ministers, and there was general agreement that it should be addressed urgently. Technical work has already begun, and Ministers will discuss it again at the June Council.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: On the consultation and the inquiry, can the Minister confirm that farmers will be given a brief résumé of the findings


whenever they are finally made available? Many farmers would be grateful for the kind of guidance that could result.

Mr. Brown: As soon as we have something further to say to farmers, we will ensure that they are notified as fully as we can, but I do not know where the affected farmers are, so we will put the information in the public domain. I am sure that by doing that, and also through their union, we will get the information to the farmers.
On agreed international standards, we have taken immediate action in the United Kingdom to minimise the chance of the problem recurring. My Department is carrying out a study into seed sourcing and the possibility that GM presence may occur in seeds. The report of the study's preliminary findings is being published today and has been placed in the Library. Members will have a chance to consider it.
The report will inform the system of seed import spot checks that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has introduced as part of the existing inspection and enforcement arrangements for GM organisms.
Officials in my Department and in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are working with the UK seed industry to develop an industry-wide code of practice on issues relating to the sourcing of seed and monitoring GM presence. I am glad to say that the industry has responded positively to that initiative.
It is unfortunate that Opposition Members are trying to make political capital out of an accident. Of course that accident is worrying for the farmers who, unfortunately, have been caught up in it, but I am trying to resolve their fears without their suffering financial loss.

Mr. Yeo: Damage to the farmers is what the Opposition are concerned about; that is why we tabled the motion. The Minister said that he might not be able to publish a minute of the meeting that took place between his officials and Advanta, because it might not exist. If a minute does not exist, it is difficult to understand how he can be so sure that certain things were not said. Be that as it may, he told the House that his officials were in continuous contact with the company for a month. There must be some minutes of some of those meetings. For the purpose of clearing up the doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) rightly raised about the difference between advice and an instruction, will the Minister at least undertake to publish all the minutes that exist of those meetings, so that the House and the industry can be clear about exactly what advice or information was passed to and from Advanta?

Mr. Brown: Subject to advice that I receive from officials once this exchange is over, if the information exists and if I can put it in the public domain, I am willing to do so. However, there may be some reason why I cannot keep that pledge. If there is such a reason, I shall explain it. A good explanation would be that there is no written record, for example. I want to be open and candid,

and if there is something that I can put in the public domain I will do so, although there are no precedents from the previous Government to guide me in that direction.

Mr. Paterson: Following on from that point, if there are no written records, can we see a diary of the telephone conversations in which each of the other Departments and the devolved Departments were informed of these events?

Mr. Brown: Those Departments were first informed at official level—but as I have already told the House, the devolved territories should have been involved earlier. I apologise for the fact that they were not. My Department's involvement with the devolved Administrations is greater than that of many others, and we have developed good working relationships with the devolved authorities in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. I want to maintain relationships built on candour, and I regret that we did not get the information to them quickly enough.

Mr. Heald: Does the Minister agree that it would be worrying if the company and/or the Government were aware of the problem, but let farmers go ahead and sow the seeds, causing all that damage and cost, which could have been avoided? Is not that one of the most serious aspects? Can he assure the House that that is not what happened and that the Government did not say, "Oh, let's keep this quiet while we do the tests."? Logic seems to suggest that that might have happened, so can the right hon. Gentleman give us the clear facts?

Mr. Brown: I can do better than that. As well as confirming that I can put the minutes of the early meetings in the public domain—I understand that there is no reason why I should not; therefore I shall do so, as I want to be candid—I can also announce to the House that the European Union committee has met, voted on the scheme that I described and approved it. As of now, a new option is available to UK farmers, and, indeed, to farmers in other parts of the EU. It is now possible for farmers to take the tops off the affected crop and still claim the arable aid payment under the rules. That is the best way forward, and I am pleased to tell the House that that option is available, because it will go a long way to resolving the issues. All Members, whatever their political point of view, will be pleased with what I have said, as it is welcome news for the farmers affected.

Mr. Colin Breed: That is welcome news, but has there been any discussion of the potential for consequential loss and damages—not specifically for those who have sown the rape, but because the destruction of so much rape, and the consequent lack of it in the market, may push up the feed price?

Mr. Brown: Many perils threaten the common agricultural policy, but an immediate lack of oilseed rape is not one of them. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
It is my contention that the Government have acted throughout in a responsible, balanced and proportionate manner. We have investigated the facts and the legal and scientific implications, and have issued information and advice accordingly. We have taken the lead in pressing for action at EU level and have secured the result that we


were looking for. We have made our representations at international level and have also taken interim measures in the UK to minimise the possibility of recurrence, pending EU and international agreement on the wider issues.
The House will have taken a hard look at the motion and the amendment, but before hon. Members make a final decision, I invite them to take a hard look at the latest eco-warrior, the Swampy of South Suffolk. The hon. Member for South Suffolk has tried to present himself as a green consumerist, who is anxious only to discover the facts. Before falling for his words, I ask the House to consider his contribution on a different matter. It displays a different swing of the famous Tory "yeo-yeo" on a debate about a real public protection issue: BSE.
On 25 March 1996, the hon. Gentleman said to the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who was then Secretary of State for Health:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been an act of gross irresponsibility on his part to overreact to the hysterical demands coming from Labour Members?
We were considering BSE, not oilseed rape. The hon. Gentleman continued:
Does he further agree that if the British beef industry is destroyed as a result of that hysteria, voters in the rural economy, which will have suffered a devastating blow, will know whom to blame?
As it turned out, they did. The hon. Gentleman's words were prophetic. He went on:
Does my right hon. Friend also agree that if billions of pounds of extra public money were suddenly to be available for the purposes of protecting children's health, it would certainly not be sensible to use that money to pay for the slaughter of millions of healthy British cattle?—[Official Report, 25 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 720.]
Those were the words of the hon. Member for South Suffolk about a public protection measure. Yet the Conservative Government found it necessary to spend what will ultimately be £4 billion on it. Given the hon. Gentleman's views on BSE, why should any hon. Member rely on his views on oilseed rape? I urge my hon. Friends to support the amendment.

Mr. David Heath: The Minister is right to say that he has a reputation for openness, frankness and candour. That reputation is hard won, hence our disappointment in the Ministry's reaction to the episode that we are considering. The delay in making details available to the public does not reflect well on the arrangements in the Ministry or between Departments. Even if it does not reflect reality, an impression has been given of complacency, inconsistency and incompetence. That is a serious charge, which will damage the Minister's reputation for openness.
It was not acceptable for details to be released to the public through a written answer, which was characterised by its incompleteness. We strongly suspect that the written answer was provided only because the matter was about to become public through other means in other parts of Europe. It was unacceptable that important details were published in a press release, which was separate from the material available to hon. Members. I raised a point of order about that on the evening that the press release was sent out. It was also unacceptable that the Minister had to be dragged to the House the following day to make a statement. The initial delay, too, was unacceptable. I shall revert to the latter point.
The Ministry, and everyone who takes a serious and scientific interest in the matter, knew that seeds from north America had been contaminated at source. It was a matter of common discourse in the scientific journals. On the day of the Minister's statement, I drew his attention to an article by Dr. Phil Dale of the John Innes centre. That was hardly a secret document; it was published in The Times on 18 June 1999. The article made it clear that there was a problem at source with the seed, yet the Department did nothing.

Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with what he says about scientific articles. I asked the House of Commons Library to do a trawl of parliamentary questions, and I find that none of us, on either the Opposition or Government Benches, tabled any parliamentary questions at any time during this Session on such contamination of seed.

Mr. Heath: I cannot honestly say whether any question was tabled from these Benches—I was not responsible for this area at the time—but I hope that we have been consistent in our criticism of GM and its handling. I do not believe that anyone can challenge Liberal Democrat Members on that.
There was a widespread view that contamination had occurred. What worries me is that, while giving assurances in the House and to growers and consumers, the Department was not instituting precautions such as the testing of seed and investigation at source, or even talking to the Americans and the Canadians, as it has done since the Advanta Seeds episode has come to light. That suggests a laxity in procedures which I would not have expected, given the public interest in the matter.
When the firm information came in on 17 or 19 April—when it was known from Advanta that there was a potential problem—that strange discourse took place between Mr. Ruthven and the Department. I do not believe for a moment that we will get to the bottom of that today. What the Minister said is in flat contradiction to what Mr. Ruthven has said on record, as reported in newspapers and elsewhere. Mr. Ruthven has the advantage of having been at the meetings and been a party to the conversations, which the right hon. Gentleman was not. That must be weighed in the balance.
We must ask ourselves to whose advantage it was that nothing was said. Was it to the advantage of a seed company that was facing potentially large compensation claims—a liability? I suspect that it was not.

Mr. Nick Brown: If it was not to its advantage that nothing was said, why did the seed company not say something?

Mr. Heath: That is precisely my point. The only rational reason why the seed company stopped notifying the farmers at that point was that it received advice from some source or other to do so. We must wait and see what the reason was.
The next question is how the matter was managed within Government. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who has just left the Chamber, said earlier, the difficulty is that the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the


Regions all have a finger in the pie. It is not clear whether people were sitting round a table at an early enough stage to develop a strategy for dealing with a potentially difficult issue.
What is clear—the Minister admitted it today and apologised for it—is that the territorial Ministers were not advised. That is extraordinary. We have a Cabinet Office and a Cabinet Committee whose job is to co-ordinate government. The one thing that it must co-ordinate is GM seeds, but it cannot be bothered to tell the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Surely somebody has that job—perhaps it should be the Advocate-General. We have never discovered what he does. Somebody should have been responsible for letting the departmental Ministers know, yet that did not happen. I find that extraordinary.
There is the argument—let us put it no higher than that—about whether an appropriate degree of consultation took place with ACRE, English Nature and other interested bodies.
Let us deal with what the Minister told us in his statement. I preface my comments by saying that I accept the general advice that there is no danger to public health or to the environment as a result of the contamination. I must, however, ask specific questions about what the Minister said. He referred to RT73 GM oilseed. He is right: the Conservatives gave licence for a part B release for trial purposes, and also for food use.
The Minister said that this variety of GM oilseed
is one that had previously been approved in the UK under our strict regulatory regime for food use.
The precise position, is it not—the Minister will confirm this—is that the oil was approved on the European Union substantial equivalence basis. It was fast-tracked through—the oil, not the seed. I hope he will also confirm that that is now being challenged by the Italian Government. There are significant doubts about whether it was appropriate. Simply to tell the House that the oilseed had been previously approved for food use was to disguise some of the background.
On 18 May, the Minister said that there was no risk to "health or the environment". He has moderated his view since then. He has said that there is no substantial or appreciable risk, and I accept that. But without clear advice beforehand and without the testing on site mentioned by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), how could he know? It was blanket advice, given on the basis of limited information rather than the exhaustive consideration and investigation that should have taken place.
On 18 May, the Minister said that the oil was
indistinguishable from conventional rape oil; no modified DNA will be present.
We have heard that argument before. I entirely accept that there is a difference between material derived from genetically modified organisms and material that contains such organisms; but let us consider the advice of the European Union scientific committee on food. On 17 June 1999, it said:
some refining processes used by industry today may ensure that DNA/protein are efficiently removed. There is no guarantee however that these processes are commonly applied.
Again, we are advised by experts that that categorical assurance could not be given, because there is at least an element of doubt. It depends on the processing mechanism.
I found it curious when the Minister said that
the GM variety is sterile.—[Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 473.]
I puzzled over that. What were we talking about? Were we talking about an F1 hybrid, or an F2 hybrid? How was that variety sterile? In fact, it is a case of male sterility. The pollen is sterile, not the plant. The female parts of the plant are anything but sterile; they are fertile, and can therefore propagate. It is rubbish to suggest that there could be cross-Pollination from male sterile plants. What there can be is continued propagation from those plants, via the female plants and seed scatter. Again, the statement was not incorrect, but it was incomplete.

Mr. Nick Brown: The risk has been described by Brian Johnson of English Nature as "vanishingly small".

Mr. Heath: I think that we have to deal with risks that are vanishingly small in this context. As I say, I honestly do not believe that this is some form of trickery that will make its way across the country and destroy nature before our eyes. However, we claim to have proper precautions in place. Everyone knows about the release of oilseed rape; everyone knows that sports get everywhere in our countryside. Hardly a lane does not have a bit of oilseed rape in it. If we are seeing release, we are seeing release. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that this is conventional, as if this variety of rape will behave differently. Perhaps he will tell me why.

Mr. Brown: The genetically modified part of what is overwhelmingly a conventional crop will behave in a different way, because it is modified to do so.

Mr. Heath: That is an entirely baffling comment. Apparently, it is modified to behave itself to stay within its field boundaries. That is wonderful news. We now have well behaved oilseed rape as a result of genetic modification. I do not believe that. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to persuade me later.
On that day, the right hon. Gentleman made a string of statements, all of which have a degree of validity, but none of which tell the complete position, which we need to know. Frankly, at that stage, if not before—I believe that we should have been told much earlier about the position—a completely candid view should have been expressed to the House. I do not criticise him because I am sure that he gave his statement in good faith, but the more we examine it and look at the detail, the more we realise that many questions still beg an answer.
A major concern for us all has been how the farmers—600 throughout the country are affected, we understand—who have grown the crop would be compensated. Today, the right hon. Gentleman has made announcements, which I wholly welcome, on European Union derogation and how that will work. That will be helpful. It does not solve the difficulties in relation to cancelled contracts, or deal with the fact that there should still be a liability on the part of the seed company. Nor does it answer another question: what role does the right hon. Gentleman feel his Department has, not in providing compensation—I do not think that it should provide it; the seed company should be liable—but in marshalling legal cases, assisting our farmers and ensuring that they are as well catered for as


farmers elsewhere in the European Union? That is absolutely the province of his Department. I would welcome more information on that.

Sir Robert Smith: I have read the Government's amendment. They clearly wish to link themselves with Advanta's decision to enter into discussions on compensation, but the sequence of events will not be lost on many Scottish farmers. It was not long after the announcement that Mr. Al Fayed had bought some of the contaminated seed that the company came out with a more interesting approach to the compensation issue.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My advice to any would-be biotechnological firm is to choose its enemies carefully. I am not sure that that firm chose its enemies terribly carefully in that respect. That may have had an effect on its decision. Nevertheless, we want a clear strategy.
The whole episode smacks of dereliction somewhere within the Department, or between the Department. I do not like the way in which the Government were eventually forced to make the matter public, rather than vouchsafing it of their own accord. I do not like the retrospective justification that is going on: the argument for a 1 per cent. threshold. It tries to justify what is a fait accompli, to our detriment. The statement was considerably ill prepared and, in some ways, ill advised. I do not accept that empty reassurance is any replacement for robust investigation.
Indeed, there is more than a smack of the old days about the whole thing. Some Labour Members have mentioned the BSE crisis. Of course there is a difference in scale. Of course there is a huge and yawning gap between what happened with BSE and what has happened with the oilseed rape seed, but some of the Department's instincts seem to have changed not one wit. That is what is of concern. I am only waiting for the day when the right hon. Gentleman corrals some poor child and stuffs him or her with an oilseed rapeburger to reassure the public, because that is how the Government have addressed the issue.
We do not want to go back to the days of the Tory Government. We do not want to go back to the way they managed things. I know that they have changed their tune. The hon. Member for South Suffolk—Swampy, as he was described earlier—has been consistent on the issue, at least over the past year or so. The Conservatives were not terribly consistent earlier. It was they, when in government, who argued against labelling GM food in Europe; and it was they who first licensed GM foods: cheese, tomato puree and soya were allowed on to the market.
The Minister was fortunate to find an appropriate quote from the previous Government. It is very difficult to find any relatively recent quote on genetically modified organisms from the previous, Conservative Government. I think that that omission was a dereliction on their part. In those days, they were not concerned about the issue, but were happy to go along with big industry. Now that Conservative Members are in opposition, they feel differently about the issue.
The episode raises some basic biotechnology issues. I do not damn all biotechnology. I have also always made it absolutely plain that the Liberal Democrats do not

believe that any technology, developing or otherwise, is in itself wholly wrong. We are, however, dealing with a critical issue that patently involves potential problems for human health, the environment, agronomics and agriculture's effect on society. We should not only be aware of those problems, but take absolutely every precaution to ensure that developments in this country are safe.
The proponents of genetic modification often argue that there is an essential similarity between it and natural selective breeding. Of course selective breeding, and the introduction of alien species to the United Kingdom, can be compared with genetic modification. Some of the issues in the inter-relationship between those developments and the environment are the same. However, there are also significant differences between genetic modification and those other developments. In genetic modification, an artificial situation is created as genes not only from different, unrelated species, but from both the animal kingdom and the plant kingdom are combined. That is not a natural process and gives rise to innate concerns.

Mr. John Hayes: The difference to which the hon. Gentleman alerts the House is essentially a difference of scale. Plant breeding programmes occur over decades and generations and are essentially gradual, whereas genetic modification programmes involve an almost immediate quantum leap. The key difference is one of scale.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a difference in scale and in the size of the technological leap. Those are both relevant factors.
There are other technological issues, such as the safety of the vector mechanism that is used to implant genetic material. What do we know about the safety of vectors? In many cases, we do not know how safe they are, because there has not yet been sufficient experimentation to enable us to be sure.
An essential issue is the friability of the new genome. The genetic material may appear at any point in a pre-existing genome, but what might be its effect? To what extent might it create fractures or new relationships in the genetic material? We need to investigate not only those matters, but the material's interactions and possible inter-relations with native species. The precautionary principle is so important.
When addressing public health issues, we have to be secure in our knowledge that a novel food, whatever it might be, has been tested to pharmacological standards, so that we are entirely aware of any potential side-effects and dangers to human health.
The labelling issue is important: we should make the public aware of what they are eating. On 13 January, when we discussed the issue, the Minister for the Environment was very clear that his personal view was that he was keen to reach a threshold of 0.1 per cent. genetic material in food, rather than the 1 per cent. threshold that is now being used as a working hypothesis. The same lower threshold should apply to seeds. If we are talking about GM-free, let us mean GM-free and specify a very low tolerance, rather than the threshold that is currently being considered.
I understand that United Kingdom officials may be supporting the European Commission's emerging view that a 1 per cent. threshold is acceptable. If so, that is


worrying. If we want GM-free seeds and cannot get them from America, let us get them from a more reliable source that is genuinely GM-free.
Some animal feed issues have not been addressed, either in the House or outside in the general consideration of these matters. At present, 2 million tonnes of GM crops are imported for animal feed. Does that cause a potential problem? The US Centre for Veterinary Medicine thinks that it does. It replied to an inquiry from the Food and Drug Administration in 1992. It stated:
In addition to the human safety and environmental concerns outlined in the appendices to the notice, CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns.
There is an issue that has not yet been properly addressed.
We have always said that farm trials are an essential part of the investigatory process. We do not accept the suggestion that there should never be any trials. If no trials take place, we shall never be able to ascertain what is scientifically valid and what is not. However, we have been consistently concerned about separation distances. That was the thrust of an argument that I put to the Minister for the Environment in January. I suggested that the distances were inadequate. I felt that I was fobbed off and that the argument was not being taken seriously.
All that has changed. I am glad that a review has been announced, but I think that it is too late. It should have been put in place a long time ago. As for the Canadian contamination, the distance was probably 800 m. That is 16 times greater than the distance that the Government were first assuring us was adequate for the task. If that is the case, why are we taking any other assurances at face value?
When farm trials take place, separation distances and the protocols of the experiments need to be right. They need to be specific to the GM species and variety that is under trial. We cannot move results from one place to another or from one variety to another. What is right for one species in East Anglia will not be right for the same species in Alberta. The local species, flora and fauna are different.
There are specific issues that we must consider, such as the evidence that has emerged of a transfer of herbicide resistance, which is being seen in Alberta. Crops lying close to GM crops have acquired Round-up assistance. They now have to be dealt with using rather more unpleasant and environmentally damaging herbicides. That is a concern. It is exactly what people have been worried about from the start in environmental terms.
As for commercial planting, we must have a strict and enforceable moratorium. I worry about the Chardon LL consideration. Some time ago, I wrote to the Prime Minister on the issue. It took months and months to get a reply from the Minister in another place, Baroness Hayman. I do not know why it takes her months to reply to my letters. I wonder whether there is a correlation between that delay and the delay in dealing effectively with this issue. It irks me that I had to pay £30—

Mr. Nick Brown: I would wish to demolish that conspiracy theory. There is a backlog in the correspondence section. Extra people have been put in to try to clear it. It is not a conspiracy.

Mr. Heath: Then that is all right. There is a backlog in the correspondence section. One effective means of

reducing the correspondence is to charge £30 to anyone who wants to object, which is the process that we have had to go through.
If the Government are to go ahead with listing Chardon LL, the moratorium means nothing. Effectively, there will be no legal barrier to a genetically modified crop being planted commercially. To be plain about it, the industry will take that course. It will lose patience in the end, unless the Government are prepared to take action.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) has repeatedly referred to the issue of reliability, and it must be sorted out. We must have a clear understanding of where liability lies so that we do not have to consider whether there is a basis for legal action being taken.
There is no need for superstition, because there are enough scientific concerns. They need to be properly addressed in a neutral way, but with an emphasis on the precautionary principle. We need proper care, good science, good agricultural practice and, above all, openness and information. We have yet to see many advantages from GM crops, but we have already seen some of the disadvantages.
I welcome the new committee, although I do not know how it will find its place in the overcrowded arena of Government responsibility in this area. We may eventually need a system map to find our way round the Government's GM management system.

Mr. Paterson: The hon. Gentleman has just said that we know the disadvantages of GM crops. Will he list them?

Mr. Heath: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been listening to my speech with such assiduity. I thought that I had been clear about some of the disadvantages. If he wants to know, perhaps he would like to speak to his hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk on the Front Bench, who can give him a comprehensive list. I thought that that was the tenor of the Conservative attack. Perhaps we have little local difficulty in this Conservative Opposition day.
I welcome the new testing procedures, the promise to look again at separation distances and the rather belated efforts to support farmers. However, I repeat that the episode has done a lot of damage to the reputation of the Minster and his Ministry, as well as to the cause of biotechnology in this country—although I leave it to others to judge whether that is a good or a bad thing. There is a lack of confidence, not necessarily in the House, but among the public, that the Government have got their heads around the issues surrounding GM technology and the necessary precautions. Over the next year or so, the Government need to persuade the public that they have sorted the problems out, because at the moment they are looking very threadbare.

Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise me on to which Committee of the House I should address my concerns. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has just spoken for longer than my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) when he introduced the debate. As a consequence, when one takes into account—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The length of time that hon. Members take when they address


the House is entirely a matter for them. Points of order such as this simply reduce the time available for other Members to contribute.

Mr. Baldry: May I finish my point of order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I have dealt with that point.

Joan Ruddock: I will endeavour to be brief. At the heart of the GM debate is a critical dialogue—or perhaps a lack of dialogue—between science and society. Scientists, particularly technologists, have moved ahead at such a pace that the public are concerned that they cannot keep up and therefore cannot remain in control of some of the things that are most fundamental to their lives—the food that they eat and the environment that they inhabit. All of that is logical. We should never deride the public for their attitudes, even if they have been influenced by the hysteria that has been whipped up at times by certain sections of the media. I have no doubts about the continuing seriousness of the subject at the heart of this debate.
There is also a perception that many GM companies have recklessly rushed to the marketplace without due concern for public sentiment and the potential effects on the environment. I want to put today's debate in that context by asking what Advanta was thinking about. The company could not have been ignorant at any stage of the preparation of the seeds. It could not have doubted the concern of the European public or the actions that have been taken by food retailers. Even when oil is produced from oilseed rape seed with no DNA remains, many retailers insist that the source of the seed is GM-free. Advanta is not ignorant of European law. Indeed, it battles frequently to achieve new licences, to have seeds placed on lists and to acquire new patents. It was completely clear that no licence existed for the commercial sale in the United Kingdom of the GM seeds in question nor the products arising from them.
My argument, therefore, is that the company had a clear duty of care. The seeds were grown in seed crops in Canada. Advanta would have been able to ascertain that GM crops were being grown in the same region in which the crops were being grown to produce conventional seed. The company must be as aware as any hon. Member of all the scientific literature on cross-contamination of oilseed rape. It must also have been clear that the particular GM crops grown in the area were those that were resistant to the Round-up herbicide developed by Monsanto. Contamination of Advanta's seed crops by GM seed of that particular type was, therefore, a real possibility.
Either Advanta should have taken care to test its seeds, or it has to bear a responsibility for knowing all that it knew and choosing not to test and, therefore, risk the possibility that it marketed contaminated seeds. Seed purity tests were available to the company, and in making the sales it did and discovering subsequently—if it was subsequently—that the seed was contaminated, it had an absolute responsibility to inform its suppliers the moment that it had the facts and to trace and inform the farmers who had planted, or had ready for planting, those seeds.
Advanta also had a responsibility to inform the Government, but informing the Government is not equivalent to passing the responsibility and liability from

the company to the Government. That responsibility and liability remains with the company. I have gone on record and criticised the Government for the delay in bringing the information into the public domain. However, I have not the slightest doubt about the motivation that led my right hon. Friend the Minister to do what he did in that intervening period. His motivation was wholly good and honourable, and I have no reason to question his integrity. There is no reason or justification for the Opposition motion today or the scurrilous attacks that have been made on my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend has set out clearly the steps that he took and perhaps the criticism that can be made is that he was overly cautious, that he tried to get everything in place and that he wanted to know exactly what the facts were, who might be affected and where the liability lay before he came to the House to give, in his words, balanced and accurate advice to farmers and consumers. That is honourable, but I hope that he will realise with hindsight that such is the sensitivity of the public to those matters that it might be more sensible in any future occurrence—which we hope does not happen—to be less cautious and to give the information before everything is in place. I accept that there may be consequences from doing that. What is clear is that there was nothing to cover up and no attempt to cover up anything.
However, there are lessons to be learned from what has happened, and I turn to them now. My right hon. Friend the Minister has spoken about the presence of oilseed rape that is genetically modified, and the advice of English Nature. It would be helpful if the Government tried to find out what traces remain of the 1999 crop. Only the male plants are sterile, so some adventitious fertilisation and seed production from the previous crop is likely. The result would be fully grown plants able to produce pollen. He may find nothing, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will look into that important matter.
Another issue involves the seeds that may remain after the safe harvesting and destruction of contaminated crops this year. I hope that steps are taken to determine what can be done about those seeds and to ensure that they are destroyed. I understand that English Nature has advised that spraying be undertaken, and that that may be necessary. However, I hope and expect that further checks will be made, so that we can reassure farmers and the public that there is no remaining contamination.
I hope also that my right hon. Friend will determine the true level of contamination in this country. It has been estimated at 1 per cent., although I believe that Advanta hoped that it was less than that. If checks are being carried out already, I hope that the results will be made known. It has been suggested that in some parts of Sweden, for example, 2.6 per cent. of the conventional seed stock was contaminated. That is worrying.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as he is one of those who support the introduction of strict liability. I do not believe that any case can be made for tolerating the confusion that arose in this case. It must be made absolutely clear that the liability in such matters rests with the company. I believe that that is the case in this instance, but the matter needs to be codified.
With regard to seed purity, I know that many people want to suggest that, because 1 per cent. contamination is accepted in food for labelling purposes, a parallel level of


contamination in seeds could be acceptable. I do not agree, as there is no equivalence. Seeds are planted into the environment, and the living plants that they produce will have a continuing effect in that environment. There is no room to tolerate any percentage of contamination. It can be prevented, and companies must be made to prevent it. Our fanners must be sure that the products that they buy are the ones that they seek, and that they are the ones that they can plant.
Time does not permit me to say all that I want to say on this subject. I believe that we can all learn from this regrettable incident—the Government, scientists, environmentalists and the public at large. Science is not absolute, as we know. We will receive the test results of our trials in due course, and the political debate will continue. However, we must be mature in that debate and understand that absolute control is not possible all the time.
We need transparency and rational argument. My right hon. Friend the Minister has dealt with the matter and brought it to a sensible conclusion for the moment. I am sure that he will have in hand what is needed for the future, and that he will ensure that farmers do not lose out as a result of this event.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: We seem to have been around this course many times before, as different products and developments affect our food supplies. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should have learned some lessons by now. It always seems to react after the event, with the result that scorn is poured on the biotech industry. That is an important and developing sector in our economy, as it is in the United States. It also drives our farmers mad. If they are not ploughing up their crops, they must tearing out their hair, and many of them are being put out of business. There have been dozens of different scares, such as BSE, salmonella, listeria, irradiated food, aldrin and spraying apples for scab. Given the number of times that the House has debated matters of this sort, we have to ask ourselves whether we have learned anything.
Has the Minister bothered to read the very excellent reports produced by our own House organisation, POST—the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. It wrote excellent and very clear papers on this subject in May 1998 and October 1999, producing excellent, simple, sensible and scientifically sound documents. That information would have informed the Minister and his Ministry so that he could have stepped in to the argument before we reached this point.
The idea that the public might get is that people working in science and the commercial development of agricultural products have no concern for their consumer market, and that they are trying to shove into the market things that are dangerous to human health, almost regardless of whether or not those products are sound. That is an absurd proposition. Any business that behaved so irresponsibly would not last five minutes, because every user of the product—and goodness knows, we live in a litigious society—would sue the company. There would be no point in taking such a risk.
We are all concerned about the relationship between society and science, but the scientist must be allowed to experiment. Trial and error is an important part of

scientific progress. At some stage, the product will be tested on people. In the past, scientists often tested products on themselves. I do not suppose that they ate mountains of soya, or whatever. However, we learned about vaccines and other products that improved human health by that means. It is inevitable that we must have trials—yet immediately such trials become known, pressure groups seek to frighten the public about them, because they have their own agenda. They believe that nature is as it is and should never be adapted or altered, yet hardly anything in our environment has not been altered over a period of time.
Historically, almost every new scientific development has been challenged. Astronomy, medicine, development of the understanding of the workings of the human body and Darwinian science have all, in their time, been treated in much the same way as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace treat this issue and have treated issues in the past.
Much of the science that is cobbled together and presented to the Minister—and much of that which was presented to the previous Government on BSE—Is highly challengeable. However, because it is all done at the last minute to deal with the challenges made by these pressure groups, it is often bad science, badly thought out. I am making a plea for us to take a logical and sensible attitude to the industry and the people producing the seeds, who have just been given a tongue lashing by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), which I think was hardly justified.
We make no progress unless we treat our scientists and those in other countries—in this case, most of the research was done in the United States—as sensible human beings.

Mr. Hayes: I do not claim to have my hon. Friend's expertise in this field. I know that she has carried out academic research into the history of science. Surely she would acknowledge that the difference with this particular challenge is its pace and scale, as I said earlier. She talks about evolutionary change in science, the many historical changes that have taken place and the suspicion that was felt at the time. However, this change is so fundamental. It does not build on what has gone before in a simple way. It is a giant leap into the unknown, is it not?

Mrs. Gorman: If Conservative Members are a family, there is probably the same latitude between my hon. Friend and me as exists in some other prominent families. I consider the trial of these products essential. The trials are being conducted discreetly and monitored carefully. To try to repress them or to distort or discredit the findings is a reactionary, almost atavistic, attitude to science.
I make my plea because when politicians consider such matters, we often know little about the science, but we criticise scientists and their motives. Let us remind ourselves that what they are trying to do is to reduce the need for the use of herbicides, such as Round-up, on crops. Those herbicides have been shown to have most undesirable effects on human health. Sensible and progressive attempts are being made to modify the seed so that we can reduce the use of some of those potentially toxic products.
All that scientists are trying to do is to produce a seed that will need less herbicide to produce a crop or one that will be resistant to the organisms that prey on it. That too


would give a more successful crop. If the effect of the organisms that destroy crops is reduced, there will be less need to use toxic substances.
That is the motivation. There is no sinister plot to bring half the population to its knees. Science and industry are trying to improve human progress—to make life better by making more food available.
One argument that has not been advanced in the debate relates to ethnic farmers. It is said that they will be forced to buy GM seeds and that, as the seeds are not fertile, they will have to be replaced regularly. Of course, that is a silly argument. Farmers anywhere in the world can continue to use the seed they already have if they want to do so.
Not enough is made of the fact that we in this House are extremely ill-informed by scientists—often it is at the last minute. I welcome the new organisation that the Government will be able to consult. I wish the Government had taken more notice of POST and hope that they will make more use of that excellent organisation; it is on-hand and can be consulted. The Government should not wait until public hysteria has been generated, largely by pressure groups that have their own agenda. The leaders of such organisations, for example, Lord Melchett, Mr. Secrett and others, have all sorts of sub-plots--not least their opposition to the world of commerce.
We must be well prepared to deal with public concerns when they are raised. In a few years time, we shall wonder what the debate was all about and why we made such a fuss. We have not had the opportunity to undertake proper trials in this country. We should do so, because it would be irresponsible not to do so.
Meanwhile, we must accept that the Canadians, who have these products, are not out to poison their population—nor is the United States. There is an element of anti-Americanism in some of the literature attacking ideas on these matters. Of course, American farmers see advantages in these products; as they use them, they realise that they do not need so many herbicides and that they can grow food more cheaply.
The British public do not yet see much advantage in GM products. Most people do not buy soya oil; it occurs only in small quantities in a wide range of foods. As people see little advantage, they decide that they may as well join in the hue and cry created by the pressure groups. Ultimately, those groups will have to eat if not a large slice of humble pie, a large jar of GM-treated soya oil. I wish them joy.
Although my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) was right to take the Government to task for coming forward yet again with an ill-prepared and ill-digested agenda, it is time that the House took a more tolerant and more sensitive view of scientific events. What progress would have been made if politicians in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries had taken such an interest in scientific matters? I can think of many elements of progress that we would not have today if they had taken the approach that has been suggested. It is likely that if we had had our way, many of the progressive moves for the production of better quality and cheaper food would not have happened.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I represent an area that has many biotech companies and I used to work at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, which is the national plant testing authority for most agricultural varieties of seed. Like most Members, I have many constituents who are concerned about the dangers to health and to the environment of GM crops and the food from them.
I listened carefully to the opening speeches. The opportunism of the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) knows no bounds. The Conservative party, when in government, refused to contemplate any labelling scheme. Those of us who fought for such a scheme well remember the opposition to the idea from the previous Conservative Government. The Conservative party in government approved GM foods for sale in this country and it saw no problem in promoting GM crops and GM food.
In contrast, the Labour party in government has strengthened the regulatory environment. We have introduced the labelling of GM ingredients in food so that people can make informed choices about what they eat. We have also promoted debate so that people are fully informed of the issues. The hon. Gentleman now chooses to take advantage of a commercial error and tries to turn it to his political advantage, instead of debating sensitively and constructively what we can do to avoid such accidents in future.
I believe that the genetic modification of crops can bring many advantages. It will be easier to produce drought-resistant crops, crops that do well in hostile environments, crops that have medicinal properties and crops that are high in protein and vitamins. However, I agree that it is necessary to proceed cautiously. We do not yet know how many of the crops will react to the environment and we do not know whether there might be future long-term health risks. There is a case for proceeding sensibly with the research.
We need to examine how best we can grow such crops in the field and examine the likelihood of them spreading beyond the immediate location. We also need to know—this area of research could prove to be extremely interesting—what will happen when farmers make the occasional mistake and when they do not follow the protocols exactly. We need to know what will happen when seed companies make mistakes, because we are beginning to find out that they do.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Lady says that, broadly speaking, she regards the development of such crops favourably. Does she support the development of crops that contain genes from bacteria that make them resistant to a wide range of weedkiller? When that weedkiller is applied to a field, it destroys everything else and creates an entirely sterile environment with the dangers to biodiversity pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs. Campbell: That is an important point. I said that GM crops can bring many advantages. However, like most scientific inventions, the science can be used for good and for ill. We must discriminate between the two. I urge caution, but I think that we shall regret it for ever if we turn our backs on a major scientific advance at this stage.
It is easy to whip up public hysteria on these issues. The hon. Member for South Suffolk is aware of public anxiety, and I believe that the debate is deliberately designed to feed that anxiety. It is not surprising that there is much public concern about food safety following the crass way in which the previous Conservative Government handled the BSE crisis, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend. When the Conservatives were in government, they cut the research budget for scrapie and other animal diseases. If they had not, the research might have led us to an awareness of the dangers before they got out of hand.
The Conservatives refused to listen to scientists. The Agriculture and Food Research Council found itself trying to cope with swingeing cuts in its research budget which were imposed by the previous Government, so it could not carry out the necessary research. I remember that the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), first mentioned the best available scientific advice after the announcement in the House that BSE posed a potential risk to human health. At that stage, it was rather late for the Government to reassure the public that they knew what they were doing, as clearly they did not.
The BSE crisis was significant because it shook public confidence in food safety. It was perceived that BSE was caused by unnatural feeding practices, and the public remain suspicious of anything to do with food which seems unnatural. The biotech companies have not helped matters by transferring fish genes to give plants frost resistance and by using a penicillin resistant marker gene to find out whether their experiments have been successful. The biotech industry has been a victim of its own ineptitude and should have recognised at an earlier stage that the public would mistrust those uses and, indeed, find them unnecessary. The industry has paid dearly for its mistakes, and we are paying too.
Some biotech companies are pulling out of the UK. Dupont, for example, has decided that it will no longer expand its Cambridge operation. We have lost for ever the opportunity to take commercial advantage of genetic modification. Having been vibrant and innovative just a few years ago, the industry has suffered a loss of public confidence, which has led to a retrenchment and firms relocating to the US. That is a great pity.
The Labour Government listen to scientific advice, not after the event, but at all times. We have increased the basic science budget by more than 16 per cent, but I hope that that we will go further than that. However, that increase shows that the Government recognise the value of scientific knowledge. The Food Standards Agency, set up by the Government, gives advice on food safety, and the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment gives advice about releases into the environment. We also have the new independent Agricultural and Environment Biotechnology Commission to provide strategic advice on GM issues.
Unfortunately, it will take a long time to regain public confidence, but that is a result of the previous Government's mishandling of the issues. It is crucial to that confidence building that an accident similar to the Advanta accident does not happen in future. I know that the Government are doing everything in their power to minimise those risks.

Mr. Tony Baldry: We are not debating the virtues or otherwise of genetically modified crops. In recent years, Parliament has often debated those issues. A statutory framework is in place and I suspect that there is not much disagreement between the parties on the way in which field crops are going forward.
Our debate is about a specific incident. The House must focus on the Government's handling of the Advanta seed contamination and the action that the Ministry took once it had that information from Advanta on 17 April. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) said about Advanta's responsibility; I accept, of course, that it had a duty of care. However, why did the general manager of Advanta repeatedly say that, at the outset, senior civil servants from MAFF and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions told him not to worry and that the matter was not of any concern? He said:
They told me that they would to make some tests themselves and not to say anything about it until they had sorted that out. I took a lot of comfort from that and as a result did not take any further action to inform farmers or seed merchants.
Clearly, one or other of those things happened. It is in everyone's interests that whatever minutes exist—I am sure that there are minutes—of meetings between officials and Advanta, they are made public.
I say to the Minister of State, as I would say to the Agriculture Minister if he were here, that the Government are largely responsible for the concern because they dealt with the matter using a planted question in another place, and nothing is more guaranteed to raise concern that the Government are trying to sneak out unfavourable news. The impression was given that they only did that as a consequence of knowing that the French and other Governments were about to release the information and that they would look misplaced if they did not do so.
The Minister's explanation that the only reason why he did not give a statement in the House was that the date in question was an Opposition supply day is one of the feeblest that the House has ever heard. It would have been perfectly possible for him to come to the House with a statement, as he eventually had to do—and then there was, understandably, a public outcry.
The Minister's explanation for the time lapse between April and May was that the Government had been seeking to establish the facts. I am still trying to work out what facts took from 17 April to 18 May—when the statement was made—to be established. Advanta had clearly come to the Government and told them that the seed was contaminated and that the contamination was de minimis—about I per cent. That fact was therefore established right at the outset, as was the fact that the genetic modification was RT73. Can the Minister of State tell the House what other facts were established between 17 April and 18 May which were not immediately known to the Agriculture Minister.
It would be interesting and helpful to know 'when the Minister was first seized of the issue. When did officials first tell him that there was a problem? As a former MAFF Minister, I imagine that the permanent secretary and officials would have gone to the Minister on 17 or 18 April and gone through all the various options and permutations with him. In his speech today, he gave the impression that be was wanting legal advice. I know that


there is a convention that Ministers do not share actual legal advice with the House, but it would be helpful if we were told when the Minister first asked lawyers in MAFF or outside for advice and what was the nature of that advice. If we do not receive that information today, we can table parliamentary questions.
It is surprising that in the Minister's statement to the House on 18 May there was absolutely no mention of any legal advice. The suspicion must be that the legal advice that he has referred to was given after 18 May, when he realised that he was in an invidious position because he could not tell the farmers to destroy their crops, but had to do something to ensure that the crops did not get into general circulation. I suspect that when we question the Minister more closely through parliamentary questions, we will discover that legal advice was not sought until after 18 May.
In his statement on 18 May, the Minister said that he
moved quickly to establish the facts.
What facts? What did he not know on 17 April that took over a month to establish? He also said:
The advice that the Government collectively have received is that it is not necessary to trace and destroy the crops.
But there was no mention or advice then of what farmers should do. That has come out in dribs and drabs subsequently. The House should note that the Minister, rather complacently, also said:
I believe that the response that I have announced today, and which was announced yesterday
in the other place
is the right one.—[Official Report, 18 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 473–74.]
Events have clearly shown that it was not the right one. On the Minister's own admissions since 18 May, he and the Government have had to do a considerable amount of work in the European Union and elsewhere and with Advanta to sort things out. They have had to persuade Advanta that it had a duty of care to pay compensation. They have had to work with the EU to produce a scheme that protects payments under the integrated administration and control system, but allows the farmers to move forward and provides them with specific and detailed advice on what they could and could not do with their crops. All of those matters have arisen since 18 May, but they should have been dealt with far earlier.
The Minister came to the House and quoted from "A Man for All Seasons", looking rather injured and sad as though he could not believe that anyone would want to criticise a nice guy like him, but the truth is that there has been a serious dereliction of duty by MAFF Ministers. I attach no blame to officials in MAFF. Having worked with them, I would say that they are an extremely good team—but the Ministers clearly did not get a grip on the issue. It would be interesting to discover what submissions and minutes went from the private office to various parts of the Ministry. I suspect that the truth of the matter is that the Minister did not get a grip on the issue until quite late in the day. The consequence is that farmers have been put in an invidious position.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who represents a university constituency, is understandably concerned that science generally should not be imputed, but good science has been imputed as a consequence of the way in which the matter has been handled.

The Minister has much explaining still to do, and the House would be greatly helped if the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) posed in his opening speech were answered in detail, and if that information in its entirety, including when legal advice was sought and its nature, were placed in the Library. Until we get to the bottom of those issues—nice guy or no nice guy—the Opposition will continue to ask questions because the farming community feels that the Government have treated it pretty badly and shabbily and it jolly well thinks that it deserves answers, and answers it will get.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I am pleased that we are debating this subject in the week in which the royal family have also decided to wade into it. I shall particularly refer to comments made by the Duke of Edinburgh, but I only wish that he had had an opportunity to listen to the wise and thoughtful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock).
What has happened reflects badly on us all, so it would be helpful if we were to begin by taking on board the shared responsibilities and history of neglect in which we have all played a part. Some of those matters were spelled out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), but I would add that we cannot ignore the way in which the whole House drifted without criticism into endorsing the biotechnology patenting regime, under which it has been effectively presumed that people can sell the ownership of life itself. It has launched society into a gold-rush of greed in pursuit of the growing and ownership of crops that no one wants, which is seen as a way not to feed the planet, but to own the food chain.
I welcome the actions that my right hon. Friend the Minister has taken. I also welcome the fact that we have signed up to the biosafety protocol, that we have introduced product labelling and that we are committed to zero contamination of non-GM crops and, belatedly, to the review of separation distances. I hope that that will result in our agreeing with the position taken by the British Bee-Keepers Association, which suggests that the separation distance should be six miles. Even so, we are still getting it wrong.
I want to make it clear that we are ill-advised to continue with the current GM trials as they are constructed. We are wrong to set standards for animal feed labelling lower than those for labelling food that goes direct to humans. We are wrong not to have introduced our own GM producer liability Bill. Nothing shows that more clearly than the experiences with Advanta.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on getting Advanta to come up with a compensation framework, but I must ask the House whether any of us are surprised that this crisis has been thrown up. Has any of us seriously doubted what has been going on? For almost a year, I have argued that an industry that failed to convince the public would seek to corrupt the food chain so that it could throw up its hands and say, "It's out there—there's nothing we can do." That was a guaranteed certainty, and it does not surprise me that Advanta has suggested a compensation scheme. Look at the wording; it came up with that scheme specifically to say, "But we accept no liability."
The compensation scheme has been suggested so that no cases go to court, because that would bring into existence a legal framework that would say to Advanta, "You bloody well are liable!" That is what it fears most and what the House ought to push forward. It is sad that the only people who appear to face prosecution are those young kids who go out in the fields and pull up the crops. In Austria, France or Sweden, they would do so under Government instruction. We have a topsy-turvy view of who is responsible for the things that are most damaging to our environment, our society and our long-term future.
I do not support the current trials because they are based on poor science or non-science and will not show up what the tests do not ask. They will not tell us anything about whether something is safe for human health and will tell us little about horizontal gene transfer. They will tell us nothing about what scientists refer to as biomagnification or of emergent characteristics. All those fundamental issues are central to the challenges presented by the technology, which is why I support the claims made for the five-year freeze programme.
It is bizarre that we are undertaking trials when there is no public support or demand for them and I read in The Times that so desperate are we to achieve co-operation in the process that the Ministry of Defence has had to resort to conscripting the tenants of its own farms to take part. That is the first occasion in peacetime on which the MOD has had to conscript its own farmers to take part in trials of products that no one wants. I am not sure how it will enforce no-fly zones around its farms, nor am I sure whether it is on the lookout for B52s or in fear of 52 bees.
The MOD has had to step in to fill the gap because the rest of society is running away from the issues and all that has stopped us becoming a laughing stock is the Duke's intervention. He has stepped in to create his own interesting distraction. It was up to him to make the decision, but he seems to be on particularly dangerous and thin ice in suggesting that there are dangers in cross-breeding with exotic foreign varieties. However, he was wrong to suggest that GM plant growing is no different from conventional plant breeding. Someone has to have a word with him. History does not bear out an analysis that a fish gene has not crossed with a soya bean because one likes polo and the other prefers rugger or one reads The Times and the other the Beano.
That sort of propagation—the ability of GM technology to produce new products—crosses all the frontiers that nature has ever set for us. That is the issue: not compatibility of interests, but the incompatibility of species. We have been presented with new challenges and we have to analyse the risk and consequences of new toxins being generated, new resistances being created and unexpected further transfers between species taking place. There is indifference to those threats. The Duke of Hazards has ploughed into the debate, leaping into his own car of convenience—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a member of the royal family, which is legitimate to an extent, but he ought to be careful with the words he uses.

Mr. Simpson: I shall confine myself to saying that we would all be wise to pause before pursuing ignorance into folly. The consequences for society will be profound if we get it wrong.
I shall set out the six challenges that all hon. Members, irrespective of party, must tackle if we are serious about the debate. First, we should stop GM trials and provide a breathing space for science to set the necessary new benchmarks, against which to measure the consequences of the technology. Secondly, until we have met the first challenge, we should reject the inclusion of GM crops in the national seed list. Thirdly, we should commit ourselves to seed purity standards which ensure that GM free means GM free—that is, zero tolerance. Fourthly, we should introduce compulsory labelling for animal feed that is no less exacting than that required for humans. Fifthly, we should prosecute the polluter, not the protester. Sixthly, we should introduce polluter liability legislation, which requires a compulsory insurance scheme to be put in place before consent is considered.
Those are challenges not only to the House, but all those outside who advocate charging into the technology. We should tell them to put their assets where there assertions are. Someone has to be held liable, whether we are considering the Crown estate, a personal estate or the House's estate. That person cannot be the farmer or the consumer. We have a duty to establish that as the moral high ground, which we are all willing to occupy.

Mr. James Paice: I want to repeat the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) at the outset. The debate is not about the benefits or otherwise of genetic modification. Conservative Members accept that there are plenty of potential benefits to producers, the environment, consumers, and—as is already happening—health care. Each development has to be properly assessed and trialled. There should not be a blanket moratorium, because that ignores the different stages of each development. The debate is about ministerial competence.
It is not surprising that the Minister and his supporters have floated several red herrings. They are nothing to do with the debate. It was suggested that the fact that we had licensed the product for food use and for trials meant that somehow everything was all right. We would never suggest otherwise in relation to food safety. Oil does not contain DNA. There cannot therefore be any doubt about food safety. We licensed the product for trials, but that is not the same as wholesale release into the environment, which has happened. It has also been claimed that we told the Minister that he should order the destruction of the crop. We did not. It has been said that we suggested that the Government should pay compensation. Again, we did not.
I stress that we do not excuse Advanta. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) was right to say that Advanta has some important questions to answer and, I suspect, some liabilities. However, that is not the issue at hand.
The motion is narrow; it deals with the Government's competence. It was clear from the pained expression on the Minister's face throughout the beginning of the debate that he knew that he was already in serious trouble. I am not talking about his integrity or his personal honesty, but his ministerial competence. He took four weeks to listen to legal advice. We know what that means: he was being told, "You can't say this, Minister; you can't say that, Minister, because if you do, you will have to find the


money for compensation, and the Government will be liable." Ministerial interest was being put before that of the farmers who were growing the crops.
The Minister made a most interesting concession. He said that he agreed with the view of the Minister for the Cabinet Office that the details should have come out earlier. He also apologised for not telling Wales and Scotland earlier. After that, I do not know how he had the gall to move the amendment. By making those two admissions, he was three quarters of the way to accepting the motion.
It is not as though the Government were not warned about the problem of seed purity. In May last year, the report that the Government commissioned from the John Innes centre stated:
Seed obtained from outside of the UK or the European Union may have different seed production criteria. This may make it difficult to guarantee that it is absolutely free from any GM material.
Even more recently, our own Select Committee on Agriculture stated:
We recommend that the Government ensure that the separation distances set out in the SCIMAC guidelines be reviewed if there is clear evidence of cross-pollination.
Again, that was a recognition that seed purity was a concern.
The delay caused by the Government's inaction meant that farmers faced the problem of what to do when they were told on 19 May that they may—still only "may"—have sown some contaminated seed. No effort had been made to trace it. The Minister said in his statement that there was no need to trace it. Farmers were left wondering what to do.
A week later the Minister published some advice, giving farmers a couple of options. Today he announced a third option. However, as you well know from your own background, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the seasons wait for no man. Planting a crop in the middle of April is a very different matter from planting it in the first week of June. There is virtually no mainstream arable crop that can be planted at the beginning of June and expected to produce any saleable crop whatever.
If farmers had been told in mid-April that their crop could be a problem, they would have had the choice. They could have decided whether to go ahead and take the risk, or to plough it up and sow some other crop, in the knowledge that they would have obtained a harvest of that crop.
The Minister sings his own praises about his achievement today in Brussels, which will allow farmers to mow their crop and still to claim the whole IACS—integrated arable control system—Payments. That is valuable, but it does not deal with the fact that farmers still had to carry all the growing costs and will get zero crop sales if they take that action.
We welcome the review of separation distances announced by the Government. I remind them that in three months, farmers will be planting next year's crop, so it is urgent that conclusions are reached on that.
I have some questions for the Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] He is probably at the shredder, in view of the comment I am about to make. We need the documents to find out what was said. I do not believe that there is smoke without fire. When representatives of Advanta tell us that they were told by officials not to tell anybody else, something needs to be properly explained.
The Minister has not yet explained to us why he did not impose trial conditions on those crops. He has not explained why he said that it was not necessary to trace crops, when ACRE said that it was. He needs to answer those questions.
Two years ago, the Minister took office, with agriculture in its entirety facing a crisis. For a while, his self-effacing charm carried him through. Over the past 12 months, the country has begun to wonder what is behind the charm. His record of delivery has been abysmal—an emergency package here, another one there; £1 million dressed up as £500 million; regulations imposed and then costs deferred; give with one hand and take back with the other.
Only four weeks ago, I pointed out at the Dispatch Box that it took the right hon. Gentleman almost a year to implement any of the proposals that we put forward in May last year to help farming through its current crisis. [Interruption.] It is highly appropriate that the Minister should appear at this point. The debate is about the nadir of his performance. We know of his total inaction for four weeks—as we heard, like a frightened rabbit paralysed in the headlights. He did not even tell Scotland or Wales, and he has now admitted that he was wrong.
Did no one in the Ministry say on 17 April, "Minister, if we act quickly we will prevent many farmers from sowing the seed"? The fact that the Minister himself did not think to ask the question demonstrates his lack of true understanding of agricultural practice. Even when he did tell the world, he exhibited—as my hon. Friend said—astonishing complacency. Like his leader, he seemed to say, "Trust me; I know what I am doing". A week later, he gave farmers two options, and left it to the company itself to advise destruction of the crop. It is a record of delay and inaction.
For two years, farming has been in a worsening crisis. When the industry needed Action Man, it got Mr. Slowcoach. When the British landscape is under threat from unauthorised GM planting—against the law, as my hon. Friend said—who is in charge of the landscape? Incapability Brown.
We have suffered too long from a Government for whom words are everything and action is nothing. Today's debate is just one more example. It is time that they went.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate. On hearing the introduction by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), I feared for its quality, but that introduction was followed by a number of excellent speeches by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Obviously, I especially commend the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister. He committed himself to openness, and, characteristically, responded to all interventions from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Many other hon. Members made thoughtful contributions—in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). The hon. Lady may be embarrassed by that. Perhaps she will return to form next time she speaks.
Let me remind the House of the Government's priorities on this issue and, indeed, the issue of genetic modification generally. Our priorities are the protection of public health and—equally important—the protection of the environment. I am glad that, throughout the debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House recognised that those were our priorities, and that we have been able to allay anxieties about public health and environmental protection. That is tremendously important and should have been the context of the debate.
There is a comprehensive United Kingdom regulatory framework that covers all stages of the development and use of GM materials. As we know, it is based mostly on European Union legislation. Some hon. Members referred to that specifically, notably the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). My right hon. Friend emphasised that the issues we have been investigating are issues with clear European Union and international implications, and should be dealt with in that context.
The Government are advised by a number of expert committees, including the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which undertakes assessments for the purposes of release and marketing of genetically modified organisms, and the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, which deals with assessments relating to foods and food ingredients. Those committees seek to ensure that advice to Government reflects the best available scientific knowledge.
The Government have reviewed the regulatory framework and agreed that the existing committee structure is basically satisfactory. However, they have decided that it should be supplemented by a mechanism to allow broader issues relating to genetic modification to be considered.
Therefore, last year we announced the creation of two strategic commissions: the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. The Human Genetics Advisory Commission has been in place for several months and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission was launched this week. Again, I was glad that that was referred to by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. To take up a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford, the Government have set up the new commissions precisely to advise Government on the wider picture, taking particular account of the public acceptability and ethical issues that she raised. Through the commissions and through our work generally, we want there to be an inclusive debate.
In setting up the Food Standards Agency at the beginning of April, the Government fulfilled a key commitment to provide independent advice to Ministers on food safety issues. It would be good to get a more wholehearted endorsement from the Conservative party of the agency and the work that it does.

Mr. Paterson: On 9 May, I put 29 questions directly to the Food Standards Agency. None has been answered. Is that an indication of how it will operate in future?

Ms Quin: Having not seen the hon. Gentleman's 29 questions, I have no idea how long it will take the

agency to deal with them, but the agency will deal with them as it deals with all other issues—with great seriousness. In response to an intervention from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), whom I do not see in the Chamber, he was wrong to say that the agency had not been consulted on the incident. He repeated that. However, he is incorrect. I firmly put it on the record that the agency was indeed consulted and gave advice, which has been put into the public domain.
I shall respond to some of the issues on openness. My right hon. Friend the Minister has related to the House the information that has been made available: the advice from ACRE and from the Food Standards Agency, the technical information about the sterility of the crops, the European Seed Association letter and the briefing note on the implication for arable area payments.
If hon. Members consult the MAFF website, they will see that the advice from ACRE and the Food Standards Agency, the advice to farmers, and the questions and answers for farmers and for the wider public are all accessible. Criticisms about lack of openness or secrecy come ill from the Conservative party, given the amount of information that we have put into the public domain and that my right hon. Friend has said will be put into the public domain as a result of some of the questions that have been directed towards him in the debate.
The words of the hon. Member for South Suffolk on BSE came back to haunt him in the debate. I was reminded of the debate in Westminster Hall last year, when my predecessor spectacularly demolished his similar claims of secrecy and cover-up. Since we have come to power, we have appointed non-scientific lay advisers to every advisory committee. Minutes and agendas of meetings have been made public. Some open meetings have been held and the minutes subsequently published.
I am glad to be able to reaffirm the Government's position, as set out in our amendment to the misguided motion. I am happy to defend the Government's action and that of colleagues in my Department and elsewhere. They have acted throughout with proper concern for accuracy of information and with concern to make that information available to Parliament—

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 267.

Division No. 223]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Allan, Richard
Body, Sir Richard


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Baker, Norman
Brady, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brake, Tom


Beggs, Roy
Breed, Colin


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Bercow, John
Browning, Mrs Angela






Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bums, Simon
Llwyd, Elfyn


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter


Cash, William
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chidgey, David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Collins, Tim
Madel, Sir David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Major, Rt Hon John


Cotter, Brian
Malins, Humfrey


Cran, James
Maples, John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Mates, Michael


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Moss, Malcolm


Day, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Norman, Archie


Duncan, Alan
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Duncan Smith, lain
Öpik, Lembit


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Evans, Nigel
Page, Richard


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Paice, James


Faber, David
Paterson, Owen


Fabricant, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Fearn, Ronnie
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Flight, Howard
prior, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Rendel, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Robathan, Andrew


Fraser, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence


Gale Roger
Roe' Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gamier, Edward
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gibb Nick
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gidley, Sandra
St Aubyn, Nick


Gill Christopher
Shepherd, Richard


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gray, James
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Green, Damian
Spring, Richard


Greenway, John
Steen, Anthony


Grieve, Dominic
Steen, Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gray


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Stunell, Andrew


Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond


Hancock, Mike
Syms, Robert


Hayes, John 
Tapsell, Sir Pear


Heald, Oliver
Taylor lan (Esher & Walton)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tonge Dr Jenny


Horam, John
Tredinnick, David


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Trend Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Walter Robert



Waterson, Nigel


Johnson Smith,
Wells, Bowen


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whittingdale, John


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann



Wilkinson, John


Key, Robert
Willetts, David


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Yeo, Tim


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lait, Mrs Jacqui



Lansley, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown and Mr. John Randall.


Leigh, Edward



Letwin, Oliver



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Ashton, Joe


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Atherton, Ms Candy


Alexander, Douglas
Atkins, Charlotte



Austin, John


Allen, Graham
Banks, Tony


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Barron Kevin


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bayley, Hugh


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Beard, Nigel





Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Follett, Barbara


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Fyfe, Maria


Bennett, Andrew F
Galloway, George


Benton, Joe
Gapes, Mike


Bermingham, Gerald
Gardiner, Barry


Best, Harold
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Blizzard, Bob
Gerrard, Neil


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Gibson, Dr Ian


Borrow, David
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Godsiff, Roger


Bradshaw, Ben
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Browne, Desmond
Grogan, John


Buck, Ms Karen
Hain, Peter


Burgon, Colin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Hanson, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Healey, John


Cann, Jamie
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Caplin, Ivor
Heppell, John


Casale, Roger
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Caton, Martin
Hill, Keith


Cawsey, Ian
Hinchliffe, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hoey, Kate


Chaytor, David
Hope, Phil


Clapham, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hurst, Alan


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hutton, John


Clelland, David
Illsley, Eric


Clwyd, Ann
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Coffey, Ms Ann
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cohen, Harry
Jamieson, David


Coleman, lain
Jenkins, Brian


Colman, Tony
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)



Cooper, Yvette
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Corbyn, Jeremy



Corston, Jean
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cranston, Ross
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Cummings, John
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Kemp, Fraser


Dalyell, Tarn
Khabra, Piara S


Darting, Rt Hon Alistair
Kilfoyle, Peter


Darvill, Keith
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Davidson, Ian
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Laxton, Bob


Dawson, Hilton
Lepper, David


Dean, Mrs Janet
Leslie, Christopher


Denham, John
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Dismore, Andrew
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Dobbin, Jim
Linton, Martin


Donohoe, Brian H
McAvoy, Thomas


Drew, David
McCabe, Steve


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)



Ellman, Mrs Louise
McDonagh, Siobhain


Ennis, Jeff
Macdonald, Calum


Etherington, Bill
McDonnell, John


Fisher, Mark
McFall, John


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Flint, Caroline
McIsaac, Shona


Flynn, Paul
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary






Mackinlay, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan


McNulty, Tony
Sarwar, Mohammad


MacShane, Denis
Savidge, Malcolm


Mactaggart, Fiona
Shaw, Jonathan


McWalter, Tony
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Singh, Marsha


Mallaber, Judy
Skinner, Dennis


Mandelson, Fit Hon Peter
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Martlew, Eric



Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Merron, Gillian
Soley, Clive


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Spellar, John


Moffatt, Laura
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Steinberg, Gerry


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stevenson, George


Morley, Elliot
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack



Stringer, Graham


Mountford, Kali
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mullin, Chris
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)



Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Thomas Gareth (Clwyd W)


Norris, Dan
Timms, Stephen


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Tipping, Paddy


O'Brien, Make (N Warks)
Todd, Mark


Olner, Bill
Touhig, Don


O'Neill, Martin
Trickett, Jon


Osbome, Ms Sandra
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pearson, Ian
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pickthall, Colin
Tynan, Bill


Pike, Peter L
Walley, Ms Joan


Plaskitt, James
Ward, Ms Claire


Pollard, Kerry
Wareing, Robert N


Pond, Chris
Watts David


Pope, Greg
White Brian


Pound, Stephen
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Primarolo, Dawn



Purchase, Ken
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rapson, Syd
Wills, Michael


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Winnick, David


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rogers, Allan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Jim Dowd and Mr. Clive Betts.


Rowlands, Ted



Roy, Frank

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 125.

Division No. 224]
[7.14 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Banks, Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Barron, Kevin


Alexander, Douglas
Bayley, Hugh


Allen, Graham
Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Austin, John
Bennett, Andrew F





Benton, Joe
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Gerrard, Neil


Best, Harold
Gibson, Dr Ian


Blackman, Liz
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Blizzard, Bob
Godsiff, Roger


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Borrow, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Grogan, John


Bradshaw, Ben
Hain, Peter


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Browne, Desmond
Hanson, David


Buck, Ms Karen
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Burgon, Colin
Healey, John


Butler, Mrs Christine
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Heppell, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hill, Keith


Cann, Jamie
Hinchliffe, David


Caplin, Ivor
Hoey, Kate


Casale, Roger
Hope, Phil


Caton, Martin
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cawsey, Ian
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Chaytor, David
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Clapham, Michael
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hurst, Alan


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hutton, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Illsley, Eric


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Clelland, David
Jamieson, David


Clwyd, Ann
Jenkins, Brian


Coffey, Ms Ann
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cohen, Harry



Coleman, lain
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Colman, Tony
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)



Cooper, Yvette
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Keeble, Ms Sally


Corston, Jean
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Cousins, Jim
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Cox, Tom
Kemp, Fraser


Cranston, Ross
Khabra, Piara S


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Darvill, Keith
Laxton, Bob


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Lepper, David


Davidson, Ian
Leslie, Christopher


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Linton, Martin


Dawson, Hilton
McAvoy, Thomas


Dean, Mrs Janet
McCabe, Steve


Denham, John
McDonagh, Siobhain


Dismore, Andrew
Macdonald, Calum


Dobbin, Jim
McDonnell, John


Drew, David
McFall, John


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McIsaac, Shona


Ennis, Jeff
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Etherington, Bill
Mackinlay, Andrew


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McNulty, Tony


Fisher, Mark
MacShane, Denis


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Mactaggart, Fiona


Flint, Caroline
McWalter, Tony


Flynn, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Follett, Barbara
Mallaber, Judy


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Fyfe, Maria
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Galloway, George
Martlew, Eric


Gapes, Mike
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Gardiner, Barry
Merron, Gillian






Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Shipley, Ms Debra


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Mountford, Kali
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mullin, Chris
Spellar, John


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stevenson, George


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Norris, Dan
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stringer, Graham


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Olner, Bill
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Osbome, Ms Sandra



Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pearson, Ian
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pickthall, Colin
Timms, Stephen


Pike, Peter L
Tipping, Paddy


Plaskitt, James
Todd, Mark


Pollard, Kerry
Touhig, Don


Pond, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pound, Stephen
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Primarolo, Dawn
Tynan, Bill


Purchase, Ken
Ward, Ms Claire


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Wareing, Robert N


Rapson, Syd
Watts, David


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
White, Brian


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rogers, Allan
Wicks, Malcolm


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rooney, Terry
Wills, Michael


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Roy, Frank
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ruddock, Joan
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Sarwar, Mohammad



Savidge, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Shaw, Jonathan
Mr. Clive Betts.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Allan, Richard



Amess, David
Cash, William


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)



Baker, Norman
Chidgey, David


Baldry, Tony
Chope, Christopher


Beggs, Roy
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Collins, Tim


Bercow, John
Cotter, Brian


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cran, James


Body, Sir Richard
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Brady, Graham
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brake, Tom
Duncan, Alan


Breed, Colin
Duncan Smith, lain


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Nigel


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Faber, David


Bums, Simon
Fabricant, Michael





Flight, Howard
Malins, Humfrey


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Maples, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Moss, Malcolm


Fraser, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Gale, Roger
Norman, Archie


Gamier, Edward
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gibb, Nick
Öpik, Lembit


Gidley, Sandra
Ottaway, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Page, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Paice, James


Gray, James
Paterson, Owen


Green, Damian
Pickles, Eric


Greenway, John
Prior, David


Grieve, Dominic
Rendel, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Robathan, Andrew


Hammond, Philip
Robertson, Laurence


Hancock Mike
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hayes, John
Ruffley, David


Heald, Oliver
Russel1' Bob, (Colchester)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
St Aubyn, Nick


Hogg Rt Hon Douglas
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Horam.John
Smith. Sir Robert (WAtVns)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Spring, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Stenley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hunter, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Johnson Smith,
Streeter, Gray



Stunell, Andrew


Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Swayne, Desmond


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Syms, Robert



Tapsell, Sir Peter


Key, Robert
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Tonge Dr Jenny


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tredinnick, David


Leigh, Edward
Trend Michael


Letwin, Oliver
Tyrie Andrew


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Viggers, Peter


Uoyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Walter Robert


Loughton, Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Luff, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Whittingdale, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Yeo, Tim


Maclean, Rt Hon David



Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Noes: Mr. John Randall and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.


McLoughlin, Patrick



Major, Rt Hon John

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House endorses Her Majesty's Government's approach to the development of GM technology in agriculture; believes that the Government has responded in a responsible, open, considered and proportionate way to the recent discovery of the adventitious presence of GM seed in conventional oilseed rape seed; supports the priority the Government has given and continues to give to the protection of public health and the environment, and its continued determination to act on the best available scientific advice; applauds the creation of the new, independent Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission to provide strategic advice on GM issues; welcomes the announcement by the seed company Advanta, following discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that they will provide a fair and equitable compensation package to affected farmers; and commends the Government for the action it is taking at both national and international level to minimise the risk of a similar incident occurring in the future.

PETITIONS

Sex Offenders

Mr. Mark Todd: I wish to present a petition signed by nearly 4,000 residents of Derbyshire and elsewhere.
The petition
Declares that further measures are required to control the activities of sex offenders against children once they have been released from prison.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to set up an independent unit to supervise released offenders; to alter parole terms for released offenders; to consider longer prison terms for offenders; to consider electronic tagging for released offenders; to consider changes in the Mental Health Act (to include child sex offenders, to qualify them for treatment); and to provide more protection and help for victims.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Religious Broadcasting

Mr. Edward Leigh: I have the honour of presenting a petition from Doreen Rogerson and more than 1,000 residents of Gainsborough and surrounding areas. The petitioners' concern is:
That Christians and people of other faiths are denied the freedom of expression available to atheists and secular humanists, and that this is a result of current broadcasting
legislation—which bans them from holding many of the types of broadcasting licence open to other people. It is also a result, as the petition recognises, of the
Rules and Codes of Guidance issued by the broadcasting regulators.
They apply special restrictions to the content of religious programming, which do not apply to secular programming. The petitioners call for this discrimination to end. They wish for respectable religious organisations to be able to compete for all types of broadcasting licences, both for television and radio, on a level playing field with everyone else. They wish to be able to turn on their televisions or their radios and tune into programming which reflects their beliefs and values just as easily as they can tune in to any other type of programming.
The petition concludes:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to bring forward proposals to amend the legislation to remove discrimination against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies, and to require the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to amend their Rules and Codes of Guidance to remove provisions which discriminate, in wording or in practice, against religious bodies.
To lie upon the Table.

Manufacturing Grants (Newark)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mrs. Fiona Jones: First, I congratulate the Minister for Competitiveness, who I understand is not here tonight because his wife has been safely delivered of a baby boy.
I welcome this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a matter of some concern to my constituents. Newark is a historic market town—it is not, however, a sleepy market town. In common with many other east midlands town, for many years Newark relied for its employment on heavy engineering. Local engineering has now finished, but at its peak, businesses in the area might have employed at least 1,000 people.
Newark has moved with the times, however, and is now well known as a centre for food manufacturing. Everything from cream cakes to spring rolls are manufactured in Newark. We have a skilled work force who make products to the most stringent standards. Recently, one of the food companies in the town closed, with the loss of 700 jobs. In addition, the collapse of Coats Viyella, a company that supplied Marks & Spencer, has meant that 1,000 jobs were lost in Newark—a devastating blow to the town, which has a travel-to-work population of about 50,000.
The town has a great deal to commend it. Newark has railway links into the county; it also has the advantage of being on the Al. I need remind no one why the industrial revolution occurred in certain locations. Newark is surrounded by agriculture and horticulture—dairy produce and fruit could easily be transported to the area. The town has ideal communication links; it is set on the Al and the east coast main line runs through it. The work force are skilled in food manufacturing and the Labour-led district council understands the value of inward investment and is committed to providing work for local people.
One would think that the future was promising. However, I fear that it is not. There is one enormous stumbling block for Newark: it cannot offer new or relocating companies any significant grant aid. The north Nottinghamshire training and enterprise council and Nottinghamshire county council can offer some support, but nothing that is significant for large companies.
There has been much controversy over the new assisted area status maps—I was disappointed that several Newark wards were excluded. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has recently expressed similar concerns in the Chamber, and that they are shared by the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope).
The allocation of European Union grants has never been without controversy, and I was also disappointed that Newark was not part of an objective 2 area. That was because the town was not close to a large urban area.
To make matters worse, grants available on the demise of the coalfields left Newark just outside the travel-to-work area, with no acknowledgement of the fact that,


as one of the towns nearest to pits in the south of the area, miners would have spent a great deal of their income in the town. Retailers in the area suffered quite badly.
Newark also suffers from its geographical location. Mansfield to the north-west offers significant assistance to new and relocating companies. I shall illustrate the problem by a comparison. If we consider the award of European regional funds and objective 1 status, we find that there is a yes in the cases of south Yorkshire and Mansfield, but a no for Newark. On assisted area status, the picture is: south Yorkshire, yes; Mansfield, yes; Newark, no. On coalfields, the picture is the same. I fully understand the criteria and why those areas have been awarded that status. The problem is that Newark does not yet fit the criteria, even though the town's economic balance has been disturbed. Companies may close, but new industries will not become part of Newark's economy.
I urge the Government to look carefully at that problem. There should be a mechanism to release some form of grant aid to areas such as Newark so that they are not disadvantaged in the long-term. Perhaps it is time to put a stop to what will inevitably be a merry-go-round of grants. I do not want Newark to become an industrial graveyard.

The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I echo the congratulations offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) to my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness and his wife on the happy news of the birth of their baby son.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on raising so movingly the real issues and difficulties facing her constituents in Newark. I myself have an east Midlands seat; I understand only too well the impact of closures such as those she described—especially in the textiles and engineering industries, which in the past have been the staple source of employment for our east midlands constituents. I certainly reassure her and, I hope, her constituents that the Government understand their needs and concerns. We seek to put into place the effective support measures that will enable towns such as Newark and their surrounding areas to move from the sectors of the economy that have been in decline, at least in employment terms, into those, such as the food manufacturing industry that she described, that are growing fast.
My hon. Friend asked about objective 1 and objective 2 status, and the availability or otherwise of regional selective assistance. The difficulty that we face is that under European Union state aid law—it is, rightly, pretty rigorous on such matters—RSA can be granted only within tiers 1 and 2 of the assisted areas. Our revised proposals for the new assisted areas map were published in April, and following a public consultation, they are now being discussed with the European Commission. However, the Commission must approve our proposals before we can pay any RSA under the new map to any applicant companies.
Our revised proposals for the new assisted areas map include Elkesley ward—I hope that I have pronounced that correctly—in my hon. Friend's constituency. The proposals were drawn up within the very tight constraints that, as she recognised, are set by the Commission. The

result of those constraints is that we have not been able to include many of the areas that we would have liked to include.
The other difficulty with the terms for drawing up the assisted areas map is that they do not provide a flexible instrument for responding to sudden changes in economic circumstances. As I understand it, at the point when the criteria for drawing up the map had to be fulfilled, the registered unemployment rate in the Newark travel-to-work area was 2.9 per cent., compared with a regional average of 3.6 per cent. and a UK rate of 4 per cent. Therefore the recent problems, the disruptions and the economic shock waves that my hon. Friend described have not been, and could not have been, taken into account in drawing up the map.
Instead, the systems of support are designed to deal with long-standing problems such as those faced in the east midlands coalfield. The new map, when approved by the Commission, will remain in place until the end of 2006 regardless of the changes that take place in the meantime. The frustrating fact is that we cannot include every area, and it is always particularly difficult for the urban areas that are next door to the areas that receive RSA to attract inward investment. I well understand the disappointment that my hon. Friend expressed on behalf of her constituents.
We recognise the need for a more flexible approach that can respond to sudden economic shocks and difficulties. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced last July that he was introducing a new funding package worth £45 million over three years for a new discretionary enterprise grant scheme. That scheme targets small and medium-sized enterprises that could grow in the assisted areas, tiers 1 and 2, and in the new enterprise grant areas, tier 3.
As my hon. Friend will know, just over 20 per cent. of her constituency is eligible for the enterprise grant scheme. It is an important initiative to help areas of special need, and I am delighted that businesses in the east midlands have responded well to its introduction. Since the start of the year, when the scheme officially opened, we have received 34 applications for enterprise grants in the east midlands, seeking grants totalling £1.2 million.
I know that my hon. Friend would like us to extend the availability of the enterprise grant scheme to the whole of Newark. It is certainly the Government's intention—she will understand that I cannot make any promises—that we, together with regional partners, will consider the coverage of the enterprise grant areas to ensure that they meet regional and local needs.
That is not all that we are doing to ensure that new jobs are created, new businesses start up and inward investment continues to come into this country, which remains the No. 1 destination for inward investment into the European Union. There are specific sources of support, such as the highly successful SMART scheme, which helps companies to prototype new, often high-tech, developments. That support is available throughout England and is not confined as is regional selective assistance.
I must end, as I began, by thanking my hon. Friend and congratulating her on drawing to the attention of the House an extremely important issue, and in particular, the concerns and difficulties facing her constituents as a result of recent factory closures and job losses. I can assure her that we in the Department of Trade and Industry are doing everything that we can to ensure that new businesses start up, existing businesses grow and more jobs are created.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is doing his part to ensure that workers, such as those in the textiles industry, who are made redundant and who will probably not be re-employed in the same industry, are none the less rapidly offered the opportunity to seek the new skills that will enable them to move into the new jobs that are being created.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eight o'clock.